/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160921.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 21, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 189 Headlines 3M CO: Residents Near Ex-Navy Bases Sue Over Firefighting Foam ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Aguirre Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class ADT CORP: Dismissal of IBEW Local 595 Pension Suit Affirmed ALBERTSON'S LLC: Certification of 4 Classes Sought in "Diaz" Suit ALERE INC: Mass. Court Ordered Schedule for Filing Amended Suit ALERE INC: Defending INRatio Class Actions in S.D. Cal. ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED: Perez Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses AMERICAN SCIENCE: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action ANCHOR DRILLING: "Stewart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime APPLIANCE RECYCLING: "Feola" Class Action Pending APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Continues to Monitor Cases v. Whirlpool ASHLEY FURNITURE: Class Certification Sought in "Dugan" Suit ASSET RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kalmenson" Suit Says AT&T SERVICES: Training Manager Class Certified in "Walton" Suit BNT NAILS: "Monzon" Class Suit Moved to S.D. Florida BOSTON COLLEGE: "Capriola" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois BRANDREP INC: Court Strikes Bid to Certify Class in "Alan" Suit BROOKHAVEN RETREAT: FLSA Class Cert. Sought in "Campbell" Suit CEPHALON INC: 3rd Cir. Sends Provigil Case Back to Lower Court CHAPA GATE: Faces "Porter" Suit Seeking "Unpaid" Wages Under FLSA CHUGACH GOVERNMENT: "Galloway" Suit Seeks Certification of Class CNX GAS: "Kinney" Suit Seeks Certification of Class CORNERSTONE EQUITY: Arbitration Ruling in "Williams" Affirmed CRIUS ENERGY: Staunches Seeks Certification of FLSA Class in Fla. DALLAS CENTRAL: TMT Mild Sues Over Excessive Appraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: "Verhalen" Sues Over Excessive Appraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Prim Turnpike Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Regency Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces RRE Fairways Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces RS Hunting Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Sealy SW Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces TC Knox Class Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces HTA-FP Tower Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Vpust Hotel Suit Over Appraisal Policies DBI O&M: Sued by Sibley Over Racial Discrimination & Retaliation DELTA AIR: Has Until Nov. 15 for Discovery of Named Plaintiffs E.S. MEDICAL: Mussat Seeks Certification of Class in TCPA Suit EVENTURES INT'L: "Pino" Suit Seeks to Recover Tips and Gratuities FANTECH SOFTWARE: Class Certification Sought in "Amini" Suit FCI LENDER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lazar" Action Claims FIRST CHINESE: Ramirez Guzman Seeks to Recover Wages Under NYLL FONTANA PAPER: "Ordaz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code GODADDY.COM LLC: Class Certification Sought in "Bennett" Suit GOYA FOODS: Must Defend Against Breach of Warranty Claims HARRIS COUNTY: MCRT Houston Sues Over Excessive Appraisal HARRIS COUNTY: Multifamily 2 Sues Over Excessive Appraisal HARRIS COUNTY: Westdale North Sues Over Excessive Appraisal HARRIS COUNTY: Sidra Riverway Sues Over Excessive Appraisal HARRIS COUNTY: TXHP Humble Sues Over Excessive Appraisal HARRIS COUNTY: Westdale Bear Sues Over Excessive Appraisal HARRIS COUNTY: Sidra Woodway Sues Over Excessive Appraisal HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Sun Life Suit Over Appraisal Policies HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Misclassifies Employees, "Vega" Suit Says HOME DEPOT: Court Rules on Class Certification in "Casey" Suit HUMANADENTAL INSURANCE: Class Certification Hearing Set for Oct 5 IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Faces Securities Suits in New Jersey JOY GLOBAL: Faces "Rote" Suit Arising From Merger With Komatsu KELLY SERVICES: Holmes Seeks Certification of FLSA Class KEY ENERGY: Motion for Class Certification Due Sept. 30 KEY ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff's Deadline to Appeal Expired KEY ENERGY: Suit in Corpus Christi, Tex. Set for Dec. 12 Trial KEY ENERGY: Suit in Houston, Tex. Set for Dec. 12 Trial KIMCO REALTY: Faces "Badger" Suit in W.D. Penn. Over ADA Breach LEE N' EDDIES: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Urban Suit LIBERTY INSURANCE: Class Certification Sought in "Bond" Suit LIVE NATION: Himber Seeks Certification of Ticket Buyers Class MC LLC: Accused by "Marks" Suit of Deceiving Jiffy Lube Customers METHOD PRODUCTS: Faces "Labrado" Class Suit in California MJ CHRISTENSEN: Fisher's Renewed Bid to Compel Response Denied ML AUTOMOTIVE: Otero Seeks Certification of Salespersons Class NIANTIC INC: Villas Sues Over Nuisance Caused by Pokemon Go Craze NORTHLAND GROUP: Aguirre Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class ORLEANS PARISH, LA: Yarls Renews Bid to Certify Residents Class OU JIANG CITY: Wu Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages PATH INC: Must Defend Against Yelp Data-Mining Privacy Suit PEOPLE AGAINST DIRTY: Accused by Vincent of Deceiving Consumers PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Says Business Review Report Not Accurate PETER PIPER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Jacobson" Action Claims PRECISION CASTPARTS: NECA-IBEW Sues Over Acquisition by Berkshire PSA REALTY: Faces "Ghale" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws R&A OYSTERS: Class of H-2B Workers Certified in "Cordova" Suit REITER BUNSIC: "Casimir" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Under FLSA RIVMAR CORPORATION: Sued by Vazquez Over FLSA and IMWL Violations ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Magistrate Judge Says Case Should be Trimmed RVS EXPRESS: Faces "Maniago" Class Suit in California SANDBOX LOGISTICS: Rayfield Sues on Behalf of Equipment Operators SCHWABE NORTH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Big Thyme Suit Claims SELECT MEDIA: Faces "Brown" Class Suit in California Super. Court SILVER CREEK: Ashcraft Class Suit Removed to E.D. Oklahoma SMG HOLDINGS: Urbano, et al. Seek Class & Subclass Certification SUMMIT NURSING: Faces "Abrigo" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA SWISHER HYGIENE: Motion to Dismiss Berger Class Suit Underway TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Oct. 6 Hearing on Motions to Transfer Cases TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Michigan Retirement Sys. Seeks Transfer of Case TEXAS COASTAL: "Sury" Suit Seeks Lost Wages Under Labor Code TODISCO SERVICES: Sued in Mass. Super. Ct. Over Billing Practices TOMMIE COPPER: "Herst" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. New York UNITED AIRLINES: "Martin" Class Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma VISION FINANCIAL: Court Enters Default Judgment in "Dolemba" Suit WARRIOR AIR: Faces "Cruz" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA ********* 3M CO: Residents Near Ex-Navy Bases Sue Over Firefighting Foam -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that residents near two former suburban Navy bases are suing producers of firefighting foam once used there, claiming they contaminated the drinking water. New York law firm Weitz & Luxenberg filed the federal lawsuit on Sept. 15 in Philadelphia on behalf of seven people who lived near the Willow Grove Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base and the Naval Air Warfare Center. The lawsuit seeks chemical cleanup and unspecified damages. Named as defendants are The 3M Co., of St. Paul, Minnesota; UK- based Angus Fire; The Ansul Co., of Marinette, Wisconsin; North Carolina-based Buckeye Fire Protection Co.; Wisconsin's Chemguard; and National Foam, of West Chester. The residents allege the companies should have known perfluorooctane sulfonate and other chemicals would pose health and environmental risks. They're seeking class action status. "With this lawsuit, we are fighting to ensure that the companies who manufactured and marketed products containing these chemicals -- and put their profits ahead of public health in the process -- are brought to justice for their wrongdoing," Robin Greenwald, who heads an environmental unit at the law firm, said in a statement. The chemical compounds have been found in some firefighting foams that were widely used for decades on military bases throughout the country. They also are found in some household items such as food packaging. The issue has gotten the attention of environmental activist Erin Brockovich, who spoke with residents at a community meeting in Willow Grove in June. Ms. Brockovich, who was portrayed by Julia Roberts in a 2000 movie bearing her name, works as a consultant to Weitz & Luxenberg. No scientific evidence has consistently linked the chemicals to cancer in humans, although some studies have shown that people exposed to high levels of the compounds had higher incidents of kidney, prostate and testicular cancers, the Pennsylvania Department of Health says. The Navy and National Guard previously agreed to pay about $19 million to provide residents replacement water and install filtration systems after more than a dozen public wells and 140 private wells in the Philadelphia area were taken offline. Attorney William A. Brewer III, representing 3M, said the claims in the lawsuit have no merit. He said the U.S. military used the product "because it saves lives, which likely explains why this product remains in use about a decade after 3M exited the sales of it." The company sold the product with instructions on how to safely use and dispose of it, he said. Tyco Fire Protection Products was aware of the legal action involving its brands Ansul and Chemguard but declined to comment on the ongoing litigation, a spokeswoman said. Other companies named in the lawsuit did not immediately respond on Sept. 16 to requests for comment. ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Aguirre Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carmen Aguirre asks the Court to certify that the claims set forth in her lawsuit captioned CARMEN AGUIRRE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS CORP.; and BLATT, HASENMILLER, LEIBSKER & MOORE LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-11111 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed on behalf of this class: (1) All persons in Illinois (2) to whom Defendant sent a form letter to collect a debt (3) substantially similar to Exhibit C of Plaintiff's Complaint (4) which threatened the possibility of interest, late charges, or other charges being added to an alleged debt (4) within 1 year of the complaint. The Case is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Ms. Aguirre also asks the Court to name her as class representative, appoint her lawyers as counsel for the class and allow her to file a memorandum in support of the Motion after taking class discovery. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6qCQPhYD The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Wood, Esq. Celetha Chatman, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 Facsimile: (312) 476-1362 E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com ADT CORP: Dismissal of IBEW Local 595 Pension Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint filed by a class of ADT investors in the case captioned IBEW LOCAL 595 PENSION AND MONEY PURCHASE PENSION PLANS, MACOMB COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, KBC ASSET MANAGEMENT NV, Plaintiffs-Appellants, PHILIP HENNINGSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE ADT CORPORATION, NAREN GURSAHANEY, KEITH A. MEISTER, CORVEX MANAGEMENT LP, Defendants- Appellees, SARATOGA ADVANTAGE TRUST LARGE CAPITALIZATION VALUE PORTFOLIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADT CORPORATION, NAREN GURSAHANEY, KEITH A. MEISTER, et al., Defendants, No. 15-13595 (11th Cir.). The case presents the question whether The ADT Corporation and its Chief Executive Officer, Naren Gursahaney (collectively, the "ADT Defendants"), and Corvex Management LP and its founder and managing director, Keith A. Meister (collectively, the "Corvex Defendants"), violated securities laws when ADT failed to disclose its subjective motivation for adopting a program to repurchase its stock. The appellants, a class of ADT investors, also alleged that the ADT Defendants made material misrepresentations by failing to disclose the effect of increased competition on ADT's financial performance and that the ADT and Corvex Defendants engaged in deceptive conduct in executing the stock repurchase plan. The ADT and Corvex Defendants moved to dismiss. The district court granted the motions and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The district court held that the ADT investors' misrepresentation claims against the ADT Defendants failed because precedent barred the claims, the complaint lacked sufficient allegations that the misrepresentations or omissions were false or misleading, and the complaint insufficiently supported an inference of scienter as to all the defendants. The district court also concluded that the ADT investors failed to state a claim for scheme liability because they failed to allege that the defendants engaged in deceptive conduct beyond the alleged misrepresentations and omissions. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court, and held that the shareholders failed to state a claim under the securities laws. A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's September 7, 2016 ruling is available at https://is.gd/kFEujU from Leagle.com. Defendant-Appellee is represented by Nancy A. Copperthwaite -- nancy.copperthwaite@akerman.com -- Louise McAlpin -- louise.mcalpin@hklaw.com -- Tracy A. Nichols -- tracy.nichols@hklaw.com -- Brian P. Miller -- bpm@scmlaw.com -- Daniel J. Kramer -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- Abigail M. Lyle -- alyle@hunton.com -- Samuel Danon -- sdanon@hunton.com -- Jamie Zysk Isani -- jisani@hunton.com -- Robert N. Kravitz -- rkravitz@paulweiss.com -- Nancy Chung -- nchung@sidley.comm -- Alexandra Walsh -- awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- Samantha J. Kavanaugh -- samantha.kavanaugh@akerman.com -- Daniel A. Mason -- dmason@paulweiss.com -- Brittany Leanne Brown -- brittany.brown@hklaw.com -- Daniel A. Richards -- drichards@westonhurd.com -- J. Wesley Earnhardt -- wearnhardt@cravath.com -- Rory A. Leraris -- rleraris@cravath.com -- Sandra C. Goldstein -- sgoldstein@cravath.com -- Jessica A. Fitts -- jfitts@akingump.com -- Michael A. Asaro -- masaro@akingump.com -- Lorayne Perez -- lorayne.perez@akerman.com -- and Patrick Mott -- pmott@akingump.com Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by Jack Reise -- jreise@rgrdlaw.com -- Douglas S. Wilens -- dwilens@rgrdlaw.com -- Stephen Astley -- sastley@rgrdlaw.com -- Elizabeth A. Shonson -- eshonson@rgrdlaw.com -- James M. Hughes -- jhughes@motleyrice.com -- Andrew T. Rees ALBERTSON'S LLC: Certification of 4 Classes Sought in "Diaz" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ANTONIO DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALBERTSON'S LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:16-cv-00257-DSF-JEM (C.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify these classes: 1. On Duty Meal Period Class: All Pharmacists employed by Defendant in California from March 22, 2013 to the present who signed an on duty meal period agreement and to whom Defendant did not provide a duty free meal break (or a one hour payment for any violations); 2. Rest Period Class: All Pharmacists employed by Defendant in California from March 22, 2013 to the present who signed an on duty meal period agreement and to whom Defendant did not authorize and permit an off duty rest break (or a one hour payment for any violations); 3. Waiting Time Class: All formerly employed Pharmacists of Defendant in California from March 22, 2013 to the present who were subjected to Defendant's on duty meal period agreement and to whom Defendant failed to timely pay all wages due upon separation from employment pursuant to Labor Code Section 203; and 4. 17200 Class: All Pharmacists employed by Defendant in California from March 22, 2013 to the present to whom Defendant has engaged in unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent business acts or practices in the form of Labor Code and Wage Order violations regarding meal and rest violations and payment of final wages. Mr. Diaz also asks the Court to appoint his counsel to serve as counsel to the classes, and to authorize Notice to the Classes of the pending action and its members' right to opt-out under Rule 23(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3nl6URLU The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. Gregg Lander, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664 Telephone: (323) 549-9100 Facsimile: (323) 549-0101 E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com lander@kbarnes.com ALERE INC: Mass. Court Ordered Schedule for Filing Amended Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Alere Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court in Massachusetts has ordered a schedule for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint and for the motion to dismiss briefing in the "Godinez" securities class action. The Company said, "On April 21, 2016, a class action lawsuit captioned Godinez v. Alere Inc., was filed against us in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On May 4, 2016, a second class action lawsuit captioned Breton v. Alere Inc., was filed against us in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Both of these class actions purport to assert claims against us and certain current and former officers for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act." "Each plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock during the period May 9, 2013 through April 20, 2016. Each complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by us and the officers regarding our business, prospects and operations, each plaintiff claims, which allegedly operated to inflate artificially the price paid for our common stock during the class period. Each complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs. "On July 11, 2016, the court entered an order consolidating the two actions and appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and on July 19, 2016, the court ordered a schedule for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint and for the motion to dismiss briefing." ALERE INC: Defending INRatio Class Actions in S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- Alere Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is defending INRatio class actions by Dina Andren and Sidney Bludman, and by J.E and J.D. The Company said, "On May 26, 2016, a class action lawsuit captioned Dina Andren and Sidney Bludman v. Alere Inc., et al., was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In addition, on July 22, 2016, a class action lawsuit captioned J.E, J.D., and all others similarly situated v. Alere Inc., Alere San Diego, Inc. and Alere Home Monitoring, Inc., was filed against us in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. These class actions purport to assert claims against us under several legal theories, including fraud, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment and violation of applicable unfair competition/business practice statutes in connection with the manufacturing, marketing and sale of our INRatio products." "The plaintiffs in the Dina Andren and Sidney Bludman class action seek to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased, rented or otherwise paid for the INRatio system during the period January 1, 2009 to May 26, 2016 in the United States, or alternatively, California, Maryland and/or New York. The plaintiffs in the J.E, J.D., and all others similarly situated class action seek to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased, rented or otherwise paid for the INRatio system during the period April 1, 2008 to present. "Both class action complaints seek restitution and damages allegedly resulting from inaccurate PT/INR readings and from the purchase of devices that claimants say they would not have purchased had they known of the alleged propensity of these devices to yield inaccurate PT/INR results. Among other things, plaintiffs in these class action lawsuits seek a refund of money spent on INRatio products. Each complaint also seeks unspecified compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. The Andren action also appears to seek damages for personal injury." ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED: Perez Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JUAN PEREZ, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED DAIRY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:13-cv-07741-R-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify these class and subclasses: Plaintiff Class: "all persons who were employed by Defendant as a "Driver" in California for as long as the statutory period will allow (the "putative class")"; Subclass 1 ("Meal Period Subclass"): "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked a shift of five hours or more for Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009]1 to May 31, 2011"; Subclass 2 ("Meal Period Subclass 2008-2011 A") (*alternative to Subclass 1): "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked a shift of five hours or more for Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009] through December 31, 2010"; Subclass 3 ("Meal Period Subclass 2008-2011 B") (*alternative to Subclass 1): "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked a shift of ten or more for Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009] through December 31, 2010"; Subclass 4 ("Rest Period Subclass"): "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked a shift of eight hours or more for Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009] through December 31, 2010"; Subclass 5 ("30 Minute Deduction Subclass - Regular Rate or Minimum Wage"): "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked a shift of five hours or more for Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009] through the date of the Certification Order"; Subclass 6 ("30 Minute Deduction Subclass - Overtime"): "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked hours eligible for overtime compensation (inclusive of the 30 minute credit for each day such time was automatically deducted) for Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009] through May 31, 2011"; Subclass 7 ("30 Minute Deduction Subclass - Regular Rate or Minimum Wage Based on Defendant's Records") (*alternative to Subclass 4): "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked a shift of five hours or more for Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009] through the date of the Certification Order without recording 30 minutes of off-duty time, but who had 30 minutes of hourly wages automatically deducted by Defendant's auto-deduct policy as shown by Defendant's corporate business and payroll records"; Subclass 8 ("30 Minute Deduction Subclass - Overtime") (*alternative to Subclass 5): "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked a shift of five hours or more for Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009] through May 31, 2011 without recording 30 minutes of off-duty time, but who had 30 minutes of hourly wages automatically deducted by Defendant's auto-deduct policy - and who worked hours eligible for overtime compensation, but whose overtime pay was unpaid and/or reduced as a result of Defendant's auto-deduct policy - as shown by Defendant's corporate business and payroll records"; Subclass 9 ("Paystub Subclass"): "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked for Defendant from [February 7, 2011] [May 15, 2012] to the date established by the Certification Order;" and Subclass 10 ("The Termination Pay Subclass"): "all Plaintiff Class Members whose employment was separated from [February 7, 2009] [May 15, 2010] to the date established by the Certification Order"; and Subclass 11 ("UCL Subclass"): "all Plaintiff Class members who worked for Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009] through the date of the Certification Order and are owed restitution for "hours worked" without pay [because of Defendant's route restriction policy] or [as shown by Defendant's corporate business and payroll records]."; A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BY7JScWy The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy B. McCaffrey, Jr., Esq. Natasha Chesler, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY B. McCAFFREY, JR. 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683 Telephone: (310) 882 6407 Facsimile: (310) 882 6359 E-mail: tmccaffrey@tbmlaw.net nchesler@tbmlaw.net AMERICAN SCIENCE: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- American Science and Engineering, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a memorandum of understanding has been reached in a class action lawsuit. As previously disclosed, (i) on June 20, 2016, American Science and Engineering, Inc. (the "Company") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with OSI Systems, Inc. ("OSI"), and its newly formed, wholly owned subsidiary, Apple Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of OSI, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement and (ii) on July 26, 2016, a putative class action complaint, captioned Klein v. American Science and Engineering, Inc., et al., 1:16-cv-11542 (D. Mass.), was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of the Company's shareholders challenging the Merger (the "Federal Action"). The complaint in the Federal Action named as defendants the Company and each member of the board of directors of the Company (the "AS&E Board"). The complaint alleged that the AS&E Board breached its fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with the Merger and sought injunctive and declaratory relief, including declaring that the Merger Agreement is unlawful and unenforceable, enjoining defendants from proceeding with the Merger or rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the Merger Agreement or any of the terms thereof. On August 15, 2016, a second putative class action complaint, which is substantively identical to that filed in the Federal Action, captioned Klein v. v. American Science and Engineering, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 16-2344 (Mass. Super. Ct.) (the "State Action") was filed in the Superior Court Department for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the "Massachusetts State Court"). On August 19, 2016, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the Federal Action and the State Action providing for the settlement of both lawsuits. If the proposed settlement is finally approved by the Massachusetts State Court, it will release all claims in all actions, including the Federal Action and the State Action, that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the Merger or the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith (excluding any demand for appraisal under Part 13 of the Massachusetts Business Corporation Act). The Company believes that no further supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the lawsuits delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending such actions, it has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger, all of which are set forth below and which should be read in conjunction with the definitive proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on July 15, 2016 (the "Proxy Statement"). Subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, the memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement contemplated by the parties will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to the Company's shareholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Massachusetts State Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the Massachusetts State Court, it will resolve and release all claims that were or could have been brought in any actions challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to shareholders of the Company prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate the plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the Massachusetts State Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by the Company or its successor, which the defendants may oppose. The Company or its successor shall pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Massachusetts State Court. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Massachusetts State Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. The proposed settlement will not affect the amount of the merger consideration that the Company's shareholders are entitled to receive in the Merger or the timing of the special meeting of the Company's shareholders, scheduled for August 31, 2016, to, among other things, consider and vote upon a proposal to approve the Merger Agreement. * * * On Sept. 12, 2016, OSI Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: OSIS) announced that it has completed its previously announced acquisition of American Science and Engineering, Inc. OSI Systems acquired all issued and outstanding shares of AS&E for $37.00 per share in cash and assumed certain unvested AS&E equity awards for a total purchase price of approximately $269 million. ANCHOR DRILLING: "Stewart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCIS STEWART, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANCHOR DRILLING FLUIDS, USA, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01372-NBF (W.D. Pa., September 2, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc., is an Oklahoma corporation doing business throughout Pennsylvania. Anchor Drilling provides several oilfield drilling products and services. Anchor Drilling employs drilling fluids technicians, including the Plaintiff, to carry out its work. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com APPLIANCE RECYCLING: "Feola" Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------------- Appliance Recycling Centers Of America, Inc. continues to defend against a class action lawsuit by Jason Feola, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 16, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2016. On March 6, 2015, a complaint was filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California by Jason Feola, individually and as a representative of a class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 15, 2012 and February 11, 2015, against Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. and certain current and former officers of the Company. Mr. Feola, pursuant to terms of his retainer agreement with The Rosen Law Firm, certified that he purchased 240 shares of the Company's common stock for $984 in total consideration. In May 2015, the Company and the individual defendants were served the complaint. In July 2015, the Company and the individual defendants received an amended complaint. The complaint alleges that misstatements and omissions occurred in press releases and filings by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission and that these misstatements or omissions constitute violations of Section 20 (a) and Section 10(b) of, and Rule 10b-5 under, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. "This matter has been submitted to our insurance carrier and we intend to contest vigorously the claims made in the complaint," the Company said. APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Continues to Monitor Cases v. Whirlpool ------------------------------------------------------------ Appliance Recycling Centers Of America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 16, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that the Company is monitoring Whirlpool's defense of claims in a class action lawsuit. The Company said, "In February 2012, various individuals commenced a class action lawsuit against Whirlpool Corporation ("Whirlpool") and various distributors of Whirlpool products, including Sears, The Home Depot, Lowe's and us, alleging certain appliances Whirlpool sold through its distribution chain, which includes us, were improperly designated with the ENERGY STAR(R) qualification rating established by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. The claims against us include breach of warranty claims, as well as various state consumer protection claims. The amount of the claim is, as yet, undetermined. Whirlpool has offered to fully indemnify and defend its distributors in this lawsuit, including us, and has engaged legal counsel to defend itself and the distributors. We are monitoring Whirlpool's defense of the claims and believe the possibility of a material loss is remote." ASHLEY FURNITURE: Class Certification Sought in "Dugan" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned CHARISSA DUGAN, individually, and on behalf of all employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., a corporation; STONELEDGE FURNITURE, LLC a limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01125-PA-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for certification of a class consisting of: "all current and former hourly, non-exempt sales consultants who were employed by Defendant in the State of California during the period of May 11, 2012 through resolution of this action, and who were not reimbursed for personal cellular telephone expenses and losses incurred in the discharge of their duties." The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Plaintiff's counsel Quintilone and Associates to serve as counsel to the class (Class Counsel), appoint Plaintiff as representative of the Class, and authorize Notice to the Class of the pending action and its members right to opt-out. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p0di3com The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq. Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES 22974 El Toro Road Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961 Telephone: (949) 458 9675 Facsimile: (949) 458 9679 E-mail: REQ@QUINTLAW.COM; ABL@QUINTLAW.COM The Defendants are represented by: J. Kevin Lilly, Esq. Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq. Simerdip Khangura, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553 0380 Facsimile: (310) 553 5583 E-mail: klilly@littler.com slidman@littler.com enguyen@littler.com skhangura@littler.com ASSET RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kalmenson" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Hindy Kalmenson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC and Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No. 15, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-04996- MKB-JO (E.D.N.Y., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Defendants operate a collection agency located in Des Plaines, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com AT&T SERVICES: Training Manager Class Certified in "Walton" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled WENDELL WALTON, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. AT&T SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-03653-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order partly granting conditional class certification of: "group of employees in the job classifications of "Senior Training Manager Design" and "Senior Training Manager Delivery" subject to the arbitration and time frame restrictions in the complaint." The Court also granted request by the plaintiffs for authorization to provide formal notice to potential members of the collective action. The plaintiffs allege that employees in two job classifications at AT&T, Senior Training Manager Design and Senior Training Manager Delivery, were denied payment for overtime because they were improperly classified as exempt from overtime payments under state and federal law and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dVAfmH2I BNT NAILS: "Monzon" Class Suit Moved to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Lissette Monzon and other similarly situated individuals v. BNT Nails Salon #1, Inc. and Tuongvi L. Nguyen, Case No. 16-019195-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-23846-KMW to the proceeding. The case asserts labor-related claims. BNT Nails Salon #1, Inc. is a nail salon located at 137 Aragon Ave, Coral Gables, FL 33134. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Saul Remer, Esq. Brody Max Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com bshulman@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Ena Teresa Diaz, Esq. ENA T. DIAZ, P.A. 999 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 720 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 377-8828 Facsimile: (305) 356-1311 E-mail: ediaz@enadiazlaw.com BOSTON COLLEGE: "Capriola" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled Glenn Capriola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trustees of Boston College and The National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:16-cv-11431, was transferred from District of Massachusetts to the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-08584 to the proceeding. Trustees of Boston College operate a private Jesuit Catholic research university located in the village of Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts. The National Collegiate Athletic Association organizes the athletic programs of many colleges and universities in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Tarricone, Esq. KREINDLER & KREINDLER 855 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 424-9100 E-mail: atarricone@kreindler.com The Defendant is represented by: John D. Hanify, Esq. Jones Day (Bos), Esq. 100 High Street Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 960-3939 Facsimile: (212) 755-7306 E-mail: jhanify@jonesday.com BRANDREP INC: Court Strikes Bid to Certify Class in "Alan" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable David O. Carter entered an order striking a motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit captioned Jason Alan v. Brandrep Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-01040-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal.). On September 1, 2016, Plaintiff Jason Alan filed the Motion and set the Motion for July 10, 2017. According to the Court's civil minutes, there has been no Rule 26(f) Report filed with the Court setting a schedule, nor has the Court approved dates in the Case. Therefore, the Court strikes the Motion. The Plaintiff may again move for class certification once dates have been set. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CjBkPoDP BROOKHAVEN RETREAT: FLSA Class Cert. Sought in "Campbell" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled SUSAN CAMPBELL, SARAH BROOK BOHANNON, ANA GARCIA-SMITH, CASANDRA HENLEY, and KRISTY MORICAL, individually, collectively, and on behalf of similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. BROOKHAVEN RETREAT, LLC, and JACQUELINE DAWES, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00424-JRG-HBG (E.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court for a step one certification of Plaintiffs' collective action overtime claim pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA Class is defined as: "persons who worked for Defendant Brookhaven Retreat, LLC, on or after May 31, 2013, the time period covered by this lawsuit, as Admission Liaisons, Business Development Professionals, or Program Counselors, and were paid as exempt employees in one or more work weeks." The lawsuit arose under the FLSA for Defendants' alleged failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees earned overtime. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JNYpp1yc The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew S. Naylor, Esq. Brittany R. Stancombe, Esq. WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP Nashville City Center 511 Union Street, Suite 2700 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 850 8578 Facsimile: (615) 244 6804 E-mail: andy.naylor@wallerlaw.com brittany.stancombe@wallerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jesse D. Nelson, Esq. Kayla L. Towe, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JESSE D. NELSON, PLLC 9724 Kingston Pike, Suite 104 Knoxville, TN 37922 Telephone: (865) 383 1053 E-mail: jesse@jessenelsonlaw.com kayla@jessenelsonlaw.com CEPHALON INC: 3rd Cir. Sends Provigil Case Back to Lower Court -------------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that kicking an antitrust case against the makers of narcolepsy drug Provigil back to a lower court for a second look at whether the litigation merits class action status, a split U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has detailed a new framework for analyzing numerosity. In a ruling on Sept. 13, the court did not entirely scrap the idea of a potential class of direct purchasers of the wakefulness drug -- rather, it noted that the small number of plaintiffs merits a second look under a new framework to determine whether numerosity was satisfied. "Here, we are faced with a putative class of 22 large and sophisticated corporations, most of which have multimillion-dollar claims, who wish to take advantage of the class action device," Third Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote in the court's opinion. "While we do not foreclose the possibility of class status in this case, or where the putative class is of similar composition, plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) has been satisfied." The appellate ruling came after U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified the class in July, reasoning that class status was the most appropriate way to serve judicial economy, given the exhaustive discovery in the litigation and the need to avoid delay of trial. However, Judge Smith said that focus was misplaced. "On remand, when considering the judicial economy factor of the numerosity analysis, the district court should not take into account the sunk costs of the litigation or the need to further delay trial were the class not to be certified," Judge Smith said. "In other words, without considering the late stage of the litigation, it should determine whether a class action would have been a substantially more efficient mechanism of litigating this suit than joinder of all parties. This primarily involves considerations of docket control, taking into account practicalities as simple as that of every attorney making an appearance on the record." Additionally, Judge Smith said Goldberg failed to consider whether it was cost-effective for all plaintiffs to take part in the class, or if they'd even be motivated to join. On remand, Judge Smith said, "factors that the district court may consider include the financial resources of the class members, the geographic dispersion of the class members, the ability to identify future claimants, together with the fact that these claims are for damages, and not injunctive relief." In a concurring and dissenting opinion, Third Circuit Senior Judge Marjorie Rendell said, "The majority concludes that the able district court judge abused his discretion by purportedly focusing on a consideration that we have never -- indeed, by my research, no court has ever -- stated it should not consider. How can that be?" She added, "Furthermore, how can it be that the majority mischaracterizes the late stage of the proceedings as being the focus of Judge Goldberg's ruling when his reasoning actually focuses on the considerations that our case law dictates it should? Also how can it be that in analyzing judicial economy district courts are prohibited from considering the stage of the proceedings? I am perplexed." Bruce Gerstein -- bgerstein@garwingerstein.com -- of Garwin Gerstein & Fisher in New York argued for the plaintiffs before the Third Circuit. A person answering The Legal's call to Gerstein said the firm did not give comments to the media. Evan R. Chesler -- echesler@cravath.com -- of Cravath, Swaine & Moore argued on behalf of the defendants. A spokesperson for the firm did not return a call seeking comment. CHAPA GATE: Faces "Porter" Suit Seeking "Unpaid" Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROJELIO H. PORTER AND CONSUELO PORTER Plaintiff, v. CHAPA GATE GUARD SERVICE, LLC, CHESAPEAKE ENERGY MARKETING, LLC, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-00375 (S.D. Tex., September 5, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages that Defendants allegedly owe Plaintiffs and similarly situated current and former gate guard workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY MARKETING, LLC provides natural gas marketing services. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mauro F. Ruiz, Esq. RUIZ LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C. 118 W. Pecan McAllen, TX 78501 Phone: (956) 259-8200 Fax: (956) 259-8203 E-mail: mruiz@mruizlaw.com - and - Mr. Benjamin R. Guerra, Esq. BEN GUERRA LAW OFFICE PLLC 902 E. Tyler Ave. Harlingen, TX 78550 Phone: (956) 428-0300 Fax: (956) 428-0332 E-mail: bguerra@benguerralaw.com - and - Mr. Timothy Raub, Esq. RAUB LAW FIRM, P.C. 814 Leopard Street Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 880-8181 Fax: (361) 887-6521 E-mail: timraub@raublawfirm.com CHUGACH GOVERNMENT: "Galloway" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CAROLYN GALLOWAY, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. CHUGACH GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:15- cv-00979-RDM (D.C.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to conditionally approve a collective action and approve the notice of certification. Chugach provides operations, training, management, and maintenance services for the U.S. Department of Labor. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NrYMtDte The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil S. Hyman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NEIL S. HYMAN, LLC 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500W Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (301) 841 7105 Facsimile: (301) 907 9591 E-mail: neil@neilhymanlaw.com CNX GAS: "Kinney" Suit Seeks Certification of Class --------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned DAVID L. KINNEY and RAYMOND P. KINNEY, individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, CNX GAS COMPANY, LLC and NOBLE ENERGY, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-00160-JPB (N.D. W.Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify this class for the purposes of litigating the deduction of post-production costs at issue in the case: "those West Virginia oil and gas mineral royalty interest owners whom have oil and gas mineral leases with CNX Gas Company, LLC and Noble Energy, Inc. which provide for the flat-rate deduction of post-production costs and whom have had post-production costs deducted from their royalty payments." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VlRuDhbZ The Plaintiff is represented by: James G. Bordas, Jr., Esq. Jason E. Causey, Esq. Jeremy M. Mcgraw, Esq. BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC 1358 National Road Wheeling, WV 26003 Telephone: (304) 242 8410 CNX Gas Company LLC is represented by: Charles F. Johns, Esq. Thomas J. Sengewalt, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON, PLLC 400 White Oaks Blvd. Bridgeport, WV 26330 E-mail: charles.johns@steptoe-johnson.com thomas.sengewalt@steptoe-johnson.com Noble Energy, Inc. is represented by: Albert Sebok, Esq. Rodney W. Stieger, Esq. Jackson Kelly, PLLC PO Box 553 Charleston, WV 25322 E-mail: asebok@jacksonkelly.com rstieger@jacksonkelly.com CORNERSTONE EQUITY: Arbitration Ruling in "Williams" Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned PATRICIA J. WILLIAMS, v. CORNERSTONE EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC, No. 0536, September Term, 2015 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.), the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City which dismissed Patricia J. Williams' action against Cornerstone Equity Partners, LLC, in favor of arbitration. Williams is a debtor, representing a class of plaintiffs against whom Cornerstone, a debt purchaser and collector, obtained judgments in the courts of Maryland between October 30, 2007, and December 15, 2010. Williams' complaint asserted that the collection judgment against her was void because Cornerstone had failed to obtain a license to do business as a collection agency. On November 17, 2014, Cornerstone filed a Petition to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings and Order for Arbitration. Cornerstone directed the court to the Cardmember Agreement, which contained an arbitration agreement. Cornerstone also asserted that Williams had waived her right to participate in a class action in the Cardmember Agreement. Williams opposed the petition, asserting that Cornerstone failed to adequately prove the existence of the arbitration agreement, that Cornerstone waived its right to arbitration by pursuing its debt collection action in the district court, and that Cornerstone could not rely on the provisions of the contract, prior to the judgment, because the contract merged into the judgment. On April 21, 2015, the circuit court entered an order dismissing the case, in favor of arbitration. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals held that the fact that Cornerstone pursued its debt collection action against Williams through litigation, rather than arbitration, is not sufficient to support the conclusion that it intended to waive its right to arbitrate other issues that might arise under the Cardmember Agreement. The appellate court found that Cornerstone's waiver is limited to its right to invoke arbitration as to the debt collection which, in effect, is a claim for breach of contract, as opposed to Williams' suit which is based upon Cornerstone's alleged violations of Maryland licensing laws. The appellate court was also unpersuaded by Williams' contention that Cornerstone waived its right to arbitration because it "did not seek arbitration right away" and "used the circuit court's subpoena power" to obtain the Cardmember Agreement. The appellate court noted that Cornerstone filed its Petition to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings and Order for Arbitration on November 17, 2014 -- only three days after it was served process on Williams' complaint. Williams' merger contentions also failed to persuade the appellate court, considering that the judgment Cornerstone obtained against Williams in the district court was based on the claim that Williams breached her contractual duty, under the Cardmember Agreement, to make payments on her account, while Williams' claims arise from Cornerstone's alleged violation of a regulatory statute. Lastly, the appellate court also dismissed Williams's final contention on appeal that the court erred in dismissing the action in favor of arbitration because the Cardmember Agreement was obtained in violation of sections 1-301-306 of the Financial Institutions Article. The appellate court found that there is nothing in Fin. Inst. section 1-305 that suggests that exclusion of evidence is a sanction for violating the statute. A full-text copy of the appellate court's September 7, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/JOQlWD from Leagle.com. CRIUS ENERGY: Staunches Seeks Certification of FLSA Class in Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Staunches moves the Court to conditionally certify the action entitled JESSICA STAUNCHES, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. CRIUS ENERGY MANAGEMENT,LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability, Case No. 8:16-cv-01941-SDM-AAS (M.D. Fla.), under the Fair Labor Standards Act and to authorize that notice be sent to all similarly situated putative class members. Ms. Staunches proposes Notice be sent to these aggrieved workers: All hourly paid customer care employees who were employed by Crius at its Florida location from [three years prior to Order granting Notice] to the present. For years, Crius has violated the FLSA by not paying complete overtime compensation to its hourly paid customer care employees, by paying compensable breaks as a separate line item on their paychecks and by not including the compensable break time in their hours worked totals for overtime calculations, Ms. Staunches alleges. She informs the Court that to date, six individuals have joined the Action and four have submitted declarations in support of the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qBJxmpFp The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Laura Prather, Esq. Andrew R. Lincoln, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, PC 100 South Ashley Ave., Suite 2200 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 512-3225 E-mail: laura.prather@jacksonlewis.com Andrew.lincoln@jacksonlewis.com DALLAS CENTRAL: TMT Mild Sues Over Excessive Appraisal ------------------------------------------------------ TMT MILD APARTMENTS INC. (METROPOLITAN AT CITYPLACE), the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11218 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep. 6, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiffs property). In May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised the value of the Property at $20,739,880. The value placed on the Property represents a value in excess of fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and discriminatory, arrived at through the adoption, application, use and enforcement of a fundamentally erroneous and unlawful plan, method and formula of valuation and assessment says the complaint. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931 9901 Facsimile: (972) 931 9208 E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com mkrasoff@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: "Verhalen" Sues Over Excessive Appraisal -------------------------------------------------------- TRICIA ANN VERHALEN, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11217 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep. 6, 2016), asks the Court to fix appraised value of Plaintiff's Property in accordance with the requirement of law pursuant to Texas Tax Code. On May 1, 2076, Plaintiff was notified by Defendant that the value of the Property had been appraised for 2016 at $1,513,560. The Property's appraised value according to the appraisal roll allegedly exceeds the correct market value as of January 1, 2016. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua E. Estes, Esq. Niral R. Gandhi, Esq. ESTES & GANDHI PC 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4610 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 272 8030 Facsimile: (214) 390 3303 E-mail: jestes@estesgandhi.com ngandhi@estesgandhi.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Prim Turnpike Suit Over Appraisal Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Prim Turnpike West, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-11342 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com mkrasoff@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Regency Suit Over Appraisal Policies ---------------------------------------------------------- Regency Medical Plaza, LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-11352 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742-4800 Facsimile: (214) 452-9064 E-mail: JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces RRE Fairways Suit Over Appraisal Policies --------------------------------------------------------------- RRE Fairways of Bent Tree Holdings, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-11361 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742-4800 Facsimile: (214) 452-9064 E-mail: JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces RS Hunting Suit Over Appraisal Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- RS Hunting Ridge Apartments, LLC and RS Hunting Ridge Brauburger, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-11382 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Lang, Esq. Heather H. Lang, Esq, LANG LAW OFFICE, PC PO Box 261330 Plano, TX 75026 Telephone: (972) 731-6758 Facsimile: (469) 854-3336 DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Sealy SW Suit Over Appraisal Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- Sealy SW Carrollton, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-11340 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com mkrasoff@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces TC Knox Class Suit Over Appraisal Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------- TC Knox Heights, LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-11358 ((Dal. Cty. Ct., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742-4800 Facsimile: (214) 452-9064 E-mail: JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces HTA-FP Tower Suit Over Appraisal Policies --------------------------------------------------------------- HTA - FP Tower, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-11353 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742-4800 Facsimile: (214) 452-9064 E-mail: JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Vpust Hotel Suit Over Appraisal Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- Vpust Hotel L.P. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-11339 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com mkrasoff@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com DBI O&M: Sued by Sibley Over Racial Discrimination & Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- LENNARD SIBLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. DBI O&M COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-00075-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss., September 2, 2016), seeks all relief due to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of the Defendant's alleged unlawful discrimination based on race and unlawful retaliation for the Plaintiff's reporting of unlawful employment practices. Mr. Sibley is an African American male and a resident and citizen of the state of Mississippi. He worked for the Defendant for two years as a Hammer Mill Operator at the Amite plant. DBI O&M Company, LLC, is a Foreign Limited Liability Company authorized to and doing business in the state of Mississippi. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert O. Waller, Esq. WALLER & WALLER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 220 South President Street (39201) Post Office Box 4 Jackson, MS 39205-0004 Telephone: (601) 354-5252 Facsimile: (601) 354-2681 E-mail: BobWaller@wallerandwaller.com DELTA AIR: Has Until Nov. 15 for Discovery of Named Plaintiffs -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson entered an order in the lawsuit styled Lopez et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-07302-SVW-SS (C.D. Cal.), deferring Plaintiff's motion to certify a class of: "all non-exempt employees from Departments 120 and 125 employed by Delta since July 1, 2011." According to Judge Wilson, the Plaintiffs attempt to hastily remedy adequacy issues by adding Karl Armstrong as named Plaintiff in their reply brief filed a month ago. The Court cannot seriously evaluate the adequacy of Armstrong based on the short notice and with no discovery yet taken by the Defendant. Further, the Defendant does not point to any conflict with Plaintiff Narr and the Court has no reason to believe the Plaintiff is inadequate. However the rest of the named Plaintiffs create a conflict with the class and are disqualified as representative. The Defendants have 60 days, until November 15, 2016, to take further discovery of any remaining named Plaintiffs. On or before November 25, 2016, both parties will file simultaneous supplementary brief, not to exceed ten pages in length. A renewed hearing on the motion for class certification will be held on December 5, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=W2lSpooj E.S. MEDICAL: Mussat Seeks Certification of Class in TCPA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Florence Mussat asks the Court to enter an order certifying that the matter entitled FLORENCE MUSSAT, M.D., S.C., individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. E.S. MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT INC., and DOES 1-3, Case No. 1:16-cv-01240 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendants based on the Plaintiff's receipt of a form unsolicited fax advertisement that also does not contain an opt-out notice that complies with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify the class defined as: All persons who were successfully sent a fax in the form of Exhibit A, advertising products available at www.esmedical.com "offering 2 discounts on all products for all of 2016!" A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eIETW8Wr The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis C. Warner, Esq. WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 350 S. Northwest Hwy., Suite 300 Park Ridge, IL 60068 Telephone: (847) 701-5290 E-mail: cwarner@warnerlawllc.com EVENTURES INT'L: "Pino" Suit Seeks to Recover Tips and Gratuities ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANA PINO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. EVENTURES INTERNATIONAL INC.; SERGIO A. PENNACHIO; and any other related entities, Case No. 157452/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., September 6, 2016), is brought pursuant to the New York Labor Law and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations to recover alleged unlawfully retained tips and gratuities owed to the Plaintiff and others, who are presently or were formerly employed by the Defendants. Eventures International Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation headquartered in Yonkers, New York. The Company is engaged in the hospitality industry. Sergio A. Pennachio is an officer or owner of the Company. The Defendants contracted with customers to cater events, including parties, birthdays, gatherings, holidays, celebrations, weddings, anniversaries, bar mitzvahs and other parties or occasions at its catering venues including but not limited to the facility commonly known as the Alder Manor. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com jbrown@lmblaw.com mtompkins@lmblaw.com FANTECH SOFTWARE: Class Certification Sought in "Amini" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned KEVIN AMINI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. FANTECH SOFTWARE, INC. DBA FANPICKS, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv- 00915-CJC-JCG (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff move the Court to certify a class consisting of: "all persons within the United States who received any unsolicited text messages from Defendant without prior express consent." The Plaintiff further moves the Court for appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AOvawPlZ The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 877 206 4741 Facsimile: 866 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com The Defendant is represented by: David G. Hagopian, Esq. CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 981 3233 FCI LENDER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lazar" Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Moshe Lazar, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. FCI Lender Services, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-04987 (E.D.N.Y., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. FCI Lender Services, Inc. operates a loan servicing company headquartered at 8180 E Kaiser Blvd, Anaheim, CA 92808. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (516) 668-6945 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com FIRST CHINESE: Ramirez Guzman Seeks to Recover Wages Under NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- ALVARO RAMIREZ GUZMAN, ELIDA AGUSTINA MEJIA HERRERA and LETICIA PANAMA RIVAS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. THE FIRST CHINESE PRESBYTERIAN COMMUNITY AFFAIRS HOME ATTENDANT CORPORATION, or any other related entities, Case No. 157401/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., September 2, 2016), seeks to recover wages and benefits, which the Plaintiffs allegedly were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive pursuant to the New York Labor Law. The action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a putative class of individuals, who are presently or were formerly employed by THE FIRST CHINESE PRESBYTERIAN COMMUNITY AFFAIRS HOME ATTENDANT CORPORATION, or any other related entities, to provide personal care, assistance, health-related tasks and other home care services to the Defendant's clients within the state of New York. First Chinese is a business corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of New York, with its principal location in New York City. The Defendant is primarily engaged in providing nursing and home health aide services at the residences of its clients. The Plaintiffs are represented by: LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Michele A. Moreno, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com mmoreno@vandallp.com - and - Carmela Huang, Esq. Tito Sinha, Esq. URBAN JUSTICE CENTER 123 Williams Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (646) 459-3021 Facsimile: (212) 533-4598 E-mail: chuang@urbanjustice.org tsinha@urbanjustice.org FONTANA PAPER: "Ordaz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR ORDAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FONTANA PAPER MILLS, INC, and DOES 1- 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC632856 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 6, 2016), seeks to recover, among other things, (1) unpaid wages, (2) premium pay for missed rest periods; (3) penalties for failure to maintain accurate wage statements (3) wages and penalties for failure to pay all wages owed at the time of termination, (4) reporting time pay, and interest, attorneys' fees, penalties, costs, and expenses pursuant to the California Labor Code, Business & Professions Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not paid of his full hourly rate for all hours actually worked. His wage statements were not accurate because the hourly rate memorialized in his wage statements were artificially reduced to make the illegal deductions. Fontana Paper is an independent manufacturer of asphalt saturated underlayments. Based in Fontana, California, Fontana Paper Mills is family owned and services distributors throughout the west coast region with the highest in quality saturated and coated products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad Biggins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHAD BIGGINS 3701 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 410 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: 213-387-3100 Facsimile: 213-387-3101 E-mail: chadbiggins@gmail.com GODADDY.COM LLC: Class Certification Sought in "Bennett" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled JASON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00291-N (S.D. Ala.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "all persons within the United States who, since two years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of the certification of a class, received a call placed to a cellular telephone line by or on behalf of Defendant that included or introduced an advertisement or constituted telemarketing, and was initiated using an automatic telephone dialing system, absent the prior express written consent of the called party to receive such calls." GoDaddy is a publicly traded Internet domain registrar and web hosting company. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nwhH0AGp The Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Cox, Esq. 9786-A Timber Circle Spanish Fort, AL 36527 Telephone: (251) 517 4753 E-mail: jrc@jrcoxlaw.com GOYA FOODS: Must Defend Against Breach of Warranty Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San Francisco, September 8, refused to dismiss breach of warranty claims in a putative class action accusing Goya Foods of selling squid as octopus, and dismissed other counts with leave to amend. Plaintiff avers that he purchased Defendant's Octopus Products on Amazon.com "in reliance on the representation that [the products] contained octopus." "Independent DNA testing [has] determined," however, that Defendant's "Octopus Products [were] actually jumbo squid and not octopus." Plaintiff alleges that he would not have purchased Defendant's Octopus Products had he known that they were made of squid. Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on May 11, 2016. The complaint asserts nine causes of action: (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, (3) breach of the implied warranty of fitness, (4) unjust enrichment, (5) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), (6) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), (7) violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), (8) negligent misrepresentation, and (9) fraud. Plaintiff brings his CLRA, UCL, and FAL claims on behalf of himself and a putative subclass of all persons who purchased Octopus Products in California. Plaintiff brings his other claims on behalf of himself and a putative class of all persons in the United States who purchased Octopus Products. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on July 11, 2016. Plaintiff filed a response on August 15, 2016, and Defendant filed a reply on August 25, 2016. The case is captioned, LUIS DIEGO ZAPATA FONSECA, Plaintiff, v. GOYA FOODS INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-02559-LHK (N.D. Cal.) A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://is.gd/G60MDv from Leagle.com. HARRIS COUNTY: MCRT Houston Sues Over Excessive Appraisal --------------------------------------------------------- MCRT HOUSTON 1 LP, the Plaintiff. v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-59638 (Harris Cty. Ct., Sep. 6, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $200,000-1,000,000 resulting from the Defendant's excess appraised value of the Plaintiff's property. The Plaintiff alleges that the 2016 value of the Property constitutes an unequal appraisal of the Property in that the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds, by at least 10%, the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties or a sample of other properties. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Gray, Esq. Lorri Michel, Esq. Shane Rogers, Esq. Natalie A. Maloney, Esq. MICHELLE & GRAY, LLP 812 W. 11th Street, Suite 301 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 477 0200 Facsimile: (512) 477 6636 E-mail: raymond@michelgray.com lorri@michelgray.com shane@michelgray.com natalie@michelgray.com HARRIS COUNTY: Multifamily 2 Sues Over Excessive Appraisal ---------------------------------------------------------- MULTIFAMILY 2 - MIRA BELLA APARTMENTS MASTER LESSEE, LLC (Mira Bella and San Martin Apartments), the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-59625 (Harris Cty. Ct., Sep. 6, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiffs property). In May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Harris County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised the value of the Property at $13,584,116, an amount in excess of the appraised value required by law. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931 9901 Facsimile: (972) 931 9208 E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com mkrasoff@gpd.com HARRIS COUNTY: Westdale North Sues Over Excessive Appraisal ----------------------------------------------------------- WESTDALE NORTH PARK TX, LP (North Park Apartments) AND WESTDALE CYPRESS CREEK TX, LP (Cypress Creek Apartments), the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016- 59570 (Harris Cty. Ct., Sep. 6, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiffs property). In May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Harris County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised the value of the Property at $19,818,568, an amount in excess of the appraised value required by law. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931 9901 Facsimile: (972) 931 9208 E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com mkrasoff@gpd.com HARRIS COUNTY: Sidra Riverway Sues Over Excessive Appraisal ----------------------------------------------------------- SIDRA RIVERWAY, LLC, FORMERLY KNOWN AS TWO RIVERWAY HOLDINGS LLC (Two Riverway), the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-59574 (Harris Cty. Ct., Sep. 6, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief. In May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Harris County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised the value of the Property at $77,259,367. The value placed on the Property represents a value in excess of fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and discriminatory, arrived at through the adoption, application, use and enforcement of a fundamentally erroneous and unlawful plan, method and formula of valuation and assessment The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931 9901 Facsimile: (972) 931 9208 E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com mkrasoff@gpd.com HARRIS COUNTY: TXHP Humble Sues Over Excessive Appraisal -------------------------------------------------------- TXHP HUMBLE LLC, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-59639 (Harris Cty. Ct., Sep. 6, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $ 200,000-1,000,000 resulting from the Defendant's excess appraised value of the Plaintiff's property. The Plaintiff alleges that the 2016 value of the Property constitutes an unequal appraisal of the Property in that the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds, by at least 10%, the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties or a sample of other properties. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Gray, Esq. Lorri Michel, Esq. Shane Rogers, Esq. Natalie A. Maloney, Esq. MICHELLE & GRAY, LLP 812 W. 11th Street, Suite 301 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 477 0200 Facsimile: (512) 477 6636 E-mail: raymond@michelgray.com lorri@michelgray.com shane@michelgray.com natalie@michelgray.com HARRIS COUNTY: Westdale Bear Sues Over Excessive Appraisal ---------------------------------------------------------- WESTDALE BEAR CREEK TX LP AND WESTDALE PARKS AT WOODLAKE TX LP (Bear Creeks and Park at Woodlake Apartments), the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016- 59561 (Harris Cty. Ct., Sep. 6, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief. In May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Harris County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised the value of the Property at $36,432,557. The value placed on the Property represents a value in excess of fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and discriminatory, arrived at through the adoption, application, use and enforcement of a fundamentally erroneous and unlawful plan, method and formula of valuation and assessment The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931 9901 Facsimile: (972) 931 9208 E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com mkrasoff@gpd.com HARRIS COUNTY: Sidra Woodway Sues Over Excessive Appraisal ---------------------------------------------------------- SIDRA WOODWAY, LLC, FORMERLY KNOWN AS 49 WOODWAY, LLC (4900 Woodway Drive), the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-59628 (Harris Cty. Ct., Sep. 6, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief. In May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Harris County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised the value of the Property at $18,336,997. The value placed on the Property represents a value in excess of fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and discriminatory, arrived at through the adoption, application, use and enforcement of a fundamentally erroneous and unlawful plan, method and formula of valuation and assessment The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931 9901 Facsimile: (972) 931 9208 E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com mkrasoff@gpd.com HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Sun Life Suit Over Appraisal Policies ---------------------------------------------------------- Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Sun Life Financial Services Company, Inc. v. Harris County Appraisal District, Case No. 2016-60340 (D. Tex., September 8, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to appraise the Plaintiff's property at its market value. Harris County Appraisal District is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory J. Dalton, Esq. GREGORY J. DALTON, PC P.O. Box 109 Katy, TX 77492 Telephone: (281) 391-1985 Facsimile: (281) 391-1987 E-mail: greg@gdaltonlaw.com HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Misclassifies Employees, "Vega" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MILKA VEGA, on her own behalf and for all others similarly situated v. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC., Case No. 8:16-cv- 02562-JDW-JSS (M.D. Fla., September 2, 2016), alleges that the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff, paying her a weekly salary, exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. HSG is a foreign corporation registered to do business in Florida. HSG is a corporation providing housekeeping, laundry, dining, and nutrition services to various healthcare facilities in 47 states. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 N. Franklin Street, #700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com HOME DEPOT: Court Rules on Class Certification in "Casey" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Amy Casey, the Plaintiff v. Home Depot et al., the Defendant, Case No. 5:14-cv-02069-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order: (1) denying in part and reserving ruling in part on Plaintiff's motion to certify a class; (2) denying Plaintiff's motion to strike class member declarations and to disqualify counsel; (3) denying Defendants' motion to strike declaration of David Lewin; (4) denying Defendants' motion for reconsideration; (5) granting Defendants' motion to exclude expert report of David Lewin; and (6) directing supplemental briefing regarding Plaintiff's motion to certify a class (in chambers) The Court directed each party to submit one supplemental brief not to exceed 10 pages addressing whether Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for class certification with respect to her ninth cause of action insofar as it challenges Home Depot's Compensation Plan's provisions regarding mileage reimbursement. Both parties shall submit their supplemental briefs by September 22, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. Plaintiff asserted, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, 12 wage-and-hour-related causes of action against Defendants arising out of her employment: (1) failure to pay wages and related overtime compensation; (2) failure to pay commissions; (3) unlawful provision of compensation time; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to provide rest periods; (6) failure to provide itemized statements; (7) failure to maintain accurate pay records; (8) failure to pay wages upon termination; (9) failure to reimburse lawful business expenses; (10) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; (11) failure to comply with records request; and (12) violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The Plaintiff sought to certify a class defined as: "645 individuals employed as Sales Consultants by Defendants in California from July 14, 2010 to the present, for purposes of Plaintiff's first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth causes of action." The Defendants, among other things, contend that Plaintiff fails to satisfy predominance requirement because Plaintiff's claim requires individualized determinations as to whether each Proposed Class Member was aware they could be reimbursed for more than $6 in weekly cell phone expenses. The Plaintiff fails to satisfy predominance requirement. The Plaintiff does not claim Defendants' reimbursement policies themselves are unlawful. Instead, Plaintiff presents evidence suggesting some Proposed Class Members were either not reimbursed for their cell phone expenses according to the Compensation Plan or were not aware they could be reimbursed for more than $6 in weekly expenses. Even assuming these facts give rise to a violation of California Labor Code, individualized determinations of fact are required as to whether each Proposed Class Member was reimbursed for their expenses or was aware they could be reimbursed more than $6 per week. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pNJha9lK The Plaintiff is represented by: Daren Lipinsky, Esq. J.E. Losavio, Jr., Law Office of Oakland, CA 94661 E-mail: dlipinsky@aol.com - and - Richard E. Quintilone, II, Esq. Avin B. Lindsay, Esq. QUINTILONE AND ASSOCIATES 18111 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 825 Irvine, CA 926127122 E-mail: abl@quintlaw.com req@quintlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Joel M. Cohn, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP Robert S. Strauss Building 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-1564 E-mail: Jcohn@akingump.com HUMANADENTAL INSURANCE: Class Certification Hearing Set for Oct 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Lawrence S. Brodsky, the Plaintiff, v. HumanaDental Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:10-cv- 03233 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge John Robert Blakey entered an order taking under advisement: 1. Defendant's motion for leave to file 8th and 9th Affirmative Defenses; 2. Plaintiff's motion to certify class; and 3. Defendant's motion to dismiss. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 15, 2016, a motion hearing is held on that day. Another status hearing is set for October 5, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1725. The Parties should be prepared to report on settlement discussions at the next hearing. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JQi8KV4y IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Faces Securities Suits in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------ Immunomedics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that service of the initiating papers in class action shareholder federal securities cases has not been made on the Company. Two purported class action cases have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Fergus v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03335, filed June 9, 2016; and Becker v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16- cv-03374, filed June 10, 2016. These cases arise from the same alleged facts and circumstances, and seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016 (with respect to the Fergus matter) and between April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (with respect to the Becker matter). These cases concern the Company's statements in press releases, investor conference calls, and SEC filings beginning in April 2016 that the Company would present updated information regarding its IMMU-132 breast cancer drug at the 2016 American Society of Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") conference in Chicago, Illinois. The complaints allege that these statements were false and misleading in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had cancelled the presentation because it contained previously reported information. The complaints further allege that these statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common stock, and that the Company and certain of its officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As of the date hereof, service of the initiating papers in these actions has not been made on the Company. JOY GLOBAL: Faces "Rote" Suit Arising From Merger With Komatsu -------------------------------------------------------------- LOREEN ROTE, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. JOY GLOBAL INC., EDWARD L. DOHENY II, JOHN N. HANSON, STEVEN L. GERARD, RICHARD B. LOYND, P. ERIC SIEGERT, JAMES H. TATE, GALE E. KLAPPA, JOHN T. GREMP, and MARK J. GLIEBE, Case No. 2:16-cv-01186 (E.D. Wisc., September 2, 2016), arises from the July 21, 2016 entry by Joy Global into a definitive merger agreement with Komatsu America Corp. and Pine Solutions Inc., pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Komatsu America. Joy Global, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal executive offices located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Founded in 1884, Joy Global is widely regarded as a worldwide leader in high- productivity mining solutions. Through its surface and underground business segments, Joy Global manufactures and services mining equipment for extraction of coal, copper, iron ore, oil sands, gold, and other minerals and ores worldwide. The Company's brands include P&H, Joy and Montabert. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Komatsu America Corp. is the U.S.-based subsidiary of the Japanese multinational corporation of Komatsu Ltd. Pine Solutions Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Komatsu America ("Merger Sub"). Based in Tokyo, Japan, Komatsu is a provider of industrial-use products and services, including construction and mining equipment, industrial machinery and vehicles, logistics, electronics, and other solutions-based operations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Guri Ademi, Esq. Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com - and - Michael J. Palestina, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 206 Covington Street Madisonville, LA 70447 Telephone: (504) 455-1400 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com KELLY SERVICES: Holmes Seeks Certification of FLSA Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled TRACIE HOLMES, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. KELLY SERVICES USA, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, and KELLY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-13164-MFL-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff moves, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for entry of an order: (1) conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA collective; (2) implementing a procedure whereby Court-authorized notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claim is sent (via first-class mail and e-mail) to: "all current and former hourly call center agents who worked for Kelly Services USA, LLC or Kelly Services, Inc. at any time in the past three years"; and (3) requiring Defendants to identify all potential opt-in Plaintiffs by providing their names, last known addresses, dates of employment, job titles, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses in an electronic and importable format within 10 days of the entry of the order. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VPPqd9dB The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355 0300 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com KEY ENERGY: Motion for Class Certification Due Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------- Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiff in the third class action case must file the motion for class certification by September 30, 2016. Between May of 2013 and June of 2014, five lawsuits (four class actions and one enforcement action) were filed in California involving alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws. In general, the lawsuits allege failure to pay wages, including overtime and minimum wages, failure to pay final wages upon employment terminations in a timely manner, failure to reimburse reasonable and necessary business expenses, failure to provide wage statements consistent with California law, and violations of the California meal and break period laws, among other claims. Two of the five cases have been consolidated in United States District Court for the Central District of California. On December 22, 2015, that court issued an order granting in part and denying in part a class certification motion. The court initially certified a class of hourly paid, non-exempt oilfield employees who allege they did not receive reimbursement for all business expenses and allege they did not receive all rest breaks required by California law. On July 6, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, and certified additional claims alleging that the wage statements were inaccurate and the overtime was improperly calculated. The court did not determine whether Key is liable to any of the class members. The plaintiff in the third case must file the motion for class certification by September 30, 2016, and that motion is scheduled to be heard on February 6, 2017. The fourth case is waiting for a decision regarding whether it will move forward in California state court or in federal court. The fifth case was dismissed on July 19, 2016. "We have investigated the claims in the four remaining lawsuits, and intend to vigorously defend them. Because these cases are at an early stage, we cannot estimate any possible loss or range of loss," the Company said. KEY ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff's Deadline to Appeal Expired ------------------------------------------------------- Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the deadline for the lead plaintiff to appeal the dismissal of its case has expired. In August 2014, two class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated against the Company and certain officers of the Company, alleging violations of federal securities laws, specifically, violations of Section 10(b) thereunder and Rule 10(b)-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Those lawsuits were styled as follows: Sean Cady, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, No. 4:14-cv-2368, filed on August 15, 2014; and Ian W. Davidson, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, No. 4.14-cv-2403, filed on August 21, 2014. On December 11, 2014, the Court entered an order that consolidated the two lawsuits into one action, along with any future filed tag- along actions brought on behalf of purchasers of Key Energy Services, Inc. common stock. The order also appointed Inter-Local Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the class action and approved the law firm of Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. as lead counsel for the consolidated class and Kendall Law Group, LLP, as local counsel for the consolidated class. The lead plaintiff filed the consolidated amended complaint on February 13, 2015. Among other changes, the consolidated amended complaint added Taylor M. Whichard III and Newton W. Wilson III as defendants, and sought to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's stock between September 4, 2012 and July 17, 2014. Defendants Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, J. Marshall Dodson and Newton W. Wilson III filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 14, 2015. Defendant Taylor M. Whichard III filed a Joinder in Motion and Motion to Dismiss on the same date. Lead plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion, and all defendants filed reply briefs in support of the motion. On April 1, 2016, the Court issued its Opinion and Order granting the defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court allowed the lead plaintiff 20 days to file another amended complaint or to inform the Court that it no longer wishes to proceed with the suit. On April 20, 2016, the lead plaintiff notified the Court that it did not intend to amend its complaint. On April 26, 2016, the Court entered a final judgment dismissing the case. The deadline for the lead plaintiff to appeal the dismissal expired on May 26, 2016. Accordingly, there has not been any loss associated with this case. KEY ENERGY: Suit in Corpus Christi, Tex. Set for Dec. 12 Trial -------------------------------------------------------------- Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that one collective action is set for trial on December 12, 2016. In March 2015, two collective action lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Company said, "We agreed to conditional certification in the first lawsuit and notice of the case issued to 56 putative class members. Only 11 of the eligible class members filed a notice of consent to join the lawsuit by the opt-in deadline. This is an opt-in rate of just below 20%. The first lawsuit is currently set for trial on December 12, 2016." "We also agreed to conditional certification in the second lawsuit and notice of the case issued to 14 putative class members. Nine putative class members, including the named plaintiff, have filed a notice of consent to join the lawsuit and the deadline to join expired on April 4, 2016. There is no trial date set for the second lawsuit. At this time, we cannot estimate any possible loss or range of loss for either case." KEY ENERGY: Suit in Houston, Tex. Set for Dec. 12 Trial ------------------------------------------------------- Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in May 2015, a class and collective action lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging violations of the FLSA and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The Company said, "We agreed to conditional certification of a putative class and notice issued to 174 putative class members. Only 27 of the eligible class members filed a notice of consent to join the lawsuit by the opt-in deadline. This is an opt-in rate of just above 15%. There is no trial date set for this lawsuit. At this time, we cannot estimate any possible loss or range of loss for this case." KIMCO REALTY: Faces "Badger" Suit in W.D. Penn. Over ADA Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Josie Badger, Angela Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kimco Realty Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-01385-MRH (W.D. Penn., September 8, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kimco Realty Corporation is a real estate investment trust headquartered in New Hyde Park, New York The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com LEE N' EDDIES: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Urban Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on September 12, 2016, in the case titled Urban Elevator Service, LLC v. Lee N' Eddies LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07788 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Gary Feinerman. The minute entry states that pursuant to the September 9, 2016 order, and given the filing of a renewed class certification motion, the Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Sgdeja1q LIBERTY INSURANCE: Class Certification Sought in "Bond" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned DAVID BOND and REBECCA BOND, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 15-4236-CV- C-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of: "all persons with a dwelling or other structure located in the state of Missouri insured by Liberty Insurance Corporation under policy Form HO 03 (Edition 04 09) and endorsements at the time of class certification and/or all persons insured by Liberty Insurance Corporation who incurred physical loss or damage to their dwelling or other structures located in the state of Missouri from April 20, 2009 to the date of class certification arising under policy Form HO 03 (Edition 04 09) and endorsements." Excluded from the Class are: (1) Liberty Insurance Corporation and its affiliates, officers, and directors; (2) Members of the judiciary and their staff to whom this action is assigned; and (3) Plaintiffs' Counsel. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Plaintiffs, David Bond and Rebecca Bond, as class representatives; appoint the law firms of Steelman, Gaunt & Horsefield; Hearne & Pivac; and Nelson, Terry, Morton, DeWitt & Paruolo as class counsel; and enter such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7kH4tnpp The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrick L. Morton, Esq. Douglas A. Terry, Esq. NELSON, TERRY, MORTON DEWITT & PARUOLO P.O. Box 138800 Oklahoma City, OK 73113 Telephone: (405) 705 3600 Facsimile: (405) 705 2573 E-mail: dterry@ntmdlaw.com morton@ntmdlaw.com - and - David L. Steelman, Esq. STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD 901 Pine Street, Suite 110 P.O. Box 1257 Rolla, Missouri 65402 Telephone: (573) 341 8336 Facsimile: (573) 341 8548 E-mail: dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com - and - Thomas H. Hearne, Esq. HEARNE & PIVAC 2733 E. Battlefield, No. 301 Springfield, Missouri 65804 Telephone: (417) 883 3399 Facsimile: (417) 883 3996 E-mail: thhearne@hplawfirm.org The Defendant is represented by: Bruce A. Moothart, Esq. Michael L. Blumenthal, Esq. SEYFERTH BLUMENTHAL & HARRIS LLC 4801 Main Street, Suite 310 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 756 0700 Facsimile: (816) 756 3700 E-mail: bruce@sbhlaw.com mike@sbhlaw.com LIVE NATION: Himber Seeks Certification of Ticket Buyers Class -------------------------------------------------------------- David Himber asks the Court to certify a class in the lawsuit entitled DAVID HIMBER, on behalf of plaintiff and a class v. LIVE NATION WORLDWIDE, INC.; and LIVE NATION MARKETING, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-05001-LDW-GRB (E.D.N.Y.). The Plaintiff seeks certification of a class defined as: (a) all persons (b) who paid either or both defendants (c) an amount in excess of the ticket price listed on defendants' web site (d) for tickets purchased at the box office (e) on or after September 8, 2013. Mr. Himber further seeks appointment as the representative of the class, and the appointment of Kleinman LLC and Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC as class counsel. In his complaint, Mr. Himber alleges that the Defendants have a practice of advertising one price for a ticket and then charging a higher price when people arrive at the box office. He argues that such conduct is a deceptive act and practice in violation of New York General Business Law, and false advertising in violation of General Business Law. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BjBKYbx6 The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603-3593 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com - and - Abraham Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN, LLC 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556-0626 Telephone: (516) 522-2621 Facsimile: (888) 522-1692 E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com MC LLC: Accused by "Marks" Suit of Deceiving Jiffy Lube Customers ----------------------------------------------------------------- LISA MARKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. M.C., LLC d/b/a JIFFY LUBE MASSACHUSETTS & JIFFY LUBE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 16-2775A (Mass. Super. Ct., September 6, 2016), alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a scheme, whereby they intentionally seek to deceive customers by misinforming, misdirecting, falsely advertising and misrepresenting that the customers' vehicles' next oil change service is due to be performed at a mileage interval, which is in fact less than the manufacturer's scheduled oil change interval. The Plaintiff contends that as a result of this scheme, the Defendants have reaped the benefit of selling oil change services to customers which are not needed. M.C., LLC, doing business as Jiffy Lube Massachusetts, is a foreign limited liability company organized under the laws of California, maintaining a place of business in Tustin, California. M.C. has a principal office in Fairhaven, Massachusetts. M.C. operated Jiffy Lube facilities throughout Massachusetts providing certain automobile repair and maintenance services. Jiffy Lube International, Inc., is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, maintaining a principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Jiffy Lube International provided material support for, and acted as a franchisor, of Jiffy Lube facilities in Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. Mazow, Esq. FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C. 2 Salem Green, Suite 2 Salem, MA 01970 Telephone: (617) 231-7829 E-mail: rmazow@forrestlamothe.com METHOD PRODUCTS: Faces "Labrado" Class Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Method Products, PBC. The case is captioned Carlo Labrado, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Method Products, PBC, Case No. CGC 16 554143 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 8, 2016). Method Products, PBC is a manufacturer of home care, fabric care and personal care products. MJ CHRISTENSEN: Fisher's Renewed Bid to Compel Response Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned STEVENSON FISHER, Plaintiff, v. MJ CHRISTENSEN JEWELERS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv- 358-RFB-NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Nancy J. Koppe denied Stevenson Fisher's renewed motion to compel responses from the defendant, Le Vian Corporation. The case arises from one prerecorded telemarketing call that Fisher received on his cell phone in December 2014. The call advertised a trunk sale for one of the defendants, MJ Christensen Jewelers (MJC). Fisher believed that MJC and other retailers associated with Le Vian may have called other consumers without permission, and therefore wished to certify a statewide class under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act and a national class under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Fisher maintained that he requires broad pre-certification discovery related to Le Vian's telemarketing practices and business relationships in order to uncover information related to the "size and identity of the class." Thus far, Fisher has filed four motions to compel in an attempt to obtain documents and information from Le Vian. The court has previously denied Fisher's first, second and third motions to compel. Judge Koppe found that Fisher has not met his burden of making a prima facie showing of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23's prerequisites because he fails to make any argument in that regard, and that neither has Fisher convinced the court that the discovery he seeks is "likely to produce persuasive information substantiating the class action allegations." Additionally, the judge stated that Fisher's discovery requests are simply not "proportional to the needs of the case" under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26. "Plaintiff makes far-reaching, overbroad discovery requests that seek to delve into business relationships and events that are far removed from the single phone call, single trunk show, and single business relationship between MJC and Le Vian that form the basis of this action," said Judge Koppe. A full-text copy of Judge Koppe's September 1, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/HLu6n9 from Leagle.com. Stevenson Fisher, Plaintiff, represented by Candice Renka -- crenka@maclaw.com -- Marquis & Aurbach. Stevenson Fisher, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A. Marquis -- smarquis@maclaw.com -- Marquis Aurbach Coffing. MJ Christensen Jewelers, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kevin N. Anderson -- kanderson@fabianvancott.com -- Fabian VanCott. Le Vian Corp, Defendant, represented by D. Neal Tomlinson, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. & Joseph Duffy, Jr. -- joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, pro hac vice. ML AUTOMOTIVE: Otero Seeks Certification of Salespersons Class -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Eduardo Otero and Hilario Gonzalez, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ML AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, d/b/a "Palmetto57 AUTO GROUP"; NM1, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, d/b/a "Palmetto57 AUTO GROUP" and "Palmetto57 NISSAN"; VW1, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, d/b/a "Palmetto57 AUTO GROUP" and "Palmetto57 VOLKSWAGEN," Case No. 1:16-cv-23239-JEM (S.D. Fla.), including Opt-in Plaintiffs Ernesto Miranda, Rafael Lacay, and Nixon Barbosa, move the Court for an order: (1) granting conditional certification of the Action as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act; (2) expediting discovery production by the Defendants, within 15 days of the Court Order, of a complete list of each and every person -- and their last known home address and telephone number, and e-mail addresses -- who was ever employed as an automobile salesperson at the auto mall dealership owned and/or operated by Defendants ML AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC; NM1, LLC; and VW1, LLC., known as "Palmetto57 AUTOGROUP" located at or near the Palmetto Expressway and NW 57th Avenue, Miami between July 27, 2016 and the present; (3) requiring Defendants to format and produce on an expedited basis said list, both in hard copy and electronically in an editable Excel spreadsheet, organized alphabetically from "A" to "Z" and with each person's last known home address and telephone number, and email addresses in a separate field corresponding with each name; and (4) permitting Plaintiffs' counsel to mail a Court-Approved Notice to all such persons about their rights to opt into this collective action by filing a Consent to Join Lawsuit. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TgEg59Bs The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq. ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A. 6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101 MIAMI, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 665-9211 Facsimile: (305) 328-4842 E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com The Defendants are represented by: Susan Potter Norton, Esq. ALLEN, NORTON & BLUE, P.A. 121 Majorca Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-7801 Facsimile: (305) 442-1578 E-mail: snorton@anblaw.com NIANTIC INC: Villas Sues Over Nuisance Caused by Pokemon Go Craze ----------------------------------------------------------------- THE VILLAS OF POSITANO CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NIANTIC, INC., THE POKEMON COMPANY, and NINTENDO CO. LTD., Case No. 3:16-cv-05091 (N.D. Cal., September 2, 2016), arises from the popular Pokemon Go mobile game. The Pokemon Go mobile game is developed by Niantic and based on a media franchise co-owned by Nintendo and marketed and licensed by Pokemon Co. Pokemon Go is the latest iteration of the immensely popular Pokemon media franchise, which consists in large part of a series of video games in which players take on the role of "trainers" with the goal of capturing and collecting fantasy creatures called Pokemon. The Villas of Positano is an oceanfront condominium complex consisting of 62 residences, located in Hollywood, Florida. Located near the Hollywood Beach Boardwalk, a public space containing restaurants and shopping, the Villas complex itself is private property. The owners of the Villas' condominiums are all members of the Condominium Association, a non-profit corporation which governs the policies of the Villas, and is responsible for, inter alia, the maintenance and upkeep of the Villas' facilities and common spaces. Villas contends that the global positioning system coordinates that the Defendants had designated as Pokestops and Pokemon gyms were on or directly adjacent to private property, and that Defendants had placed these Pokestops and Pokemon gyms on private property without the consent of the properties' owners. The intentional, unauthorized placement of Pokestops and Pokemon gyms on or near the Villas and the properties of other members of the proposed class constitutes a continuing invasion of the class members' use and enjoyment of their land, committed by Niantic on an ongoing basis for Defendants' profit, Villas contends. Villas adds that Niantic has, thus far, ignored repeated requests to remove the Pokestop at issue. Hence, Villas says, the Defendants are liable for nuisance and damages caused by the players. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com NORTHLAND GROUP: Aguirre Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class ----------------------------------------------------------- Carmen Aguirre asks the Court to certify that the claims set forth in her lawsuit titled CARMEN AGUIRRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORTHLAND GROUP INC, Case No. 1:16-cv-05003 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed on behalf of the proposed class defined as: (1) All persons in Illinois (2) to whom Defendant sent a form letter to collect a debt (3) substantially similar to Exhibit C of Plaintiff's Complaint (4) which threatened the possibility of IRS reporting for (5) any debt less than $600 (6) within 1 year of the complaint. Ms. Aguirre also asks the Court to name her as class representative, appoint her lawyers as counsel for the class and allow her to file a memorandum in support of the Motion after taking class discovery. Ms. Aguirre brings the class action for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. She alleges that the Defendants violated the FDCPA by threatening to report debt cancellation to the IRS if she chooses to pay less than the total amount due on a debt where the total amount is below any threshold for IRS reporting. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ckjlYrY5 The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Wood, Esq. Celetha Chatman, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 Facsimile: (312) 476-1362 E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com ORLEANS PARISH, LA: Yarls Renews Bid to Certify Residents Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs renew their motion for an order certifying as a class action the lawsuit captioned Darwin Yarls, Jr., Leroy Shaw, Jr. and Douglas R. Brown on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Derwyn Bunton, in his official capacity as Chief District Defender for Orleans Parish, Louisiana; James T. Dixon, Jr., in his official capacity as Louisiana State Public Defender, Case No. 3:16-cv-00031-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.). Darwin Yarls, Jr., et al., seeks certification of a class consisting of all individuals in Louisiana, who have been or will be placed on a waiting list for representation, thereby, denying them competent, conflict-free counsel indefinitely. The Plaintiffs additionally move to certify a subclass of Orleans Parish defendants, who have been or will be placed on a waiting list for representation, thereby, denying them competent, conflict-free counsel indefinitely. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to designate them as class representatives, and appoint their attorneys as class co-counsel in the Action. They further ask the Court to schedule a hearing on the matter, and direct the parties to begin class discovery prior to ruling on class certification. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1Kb7Lefw The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon J. Buskey, Esq. Ezekiel Edwards, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION CRIMINAL LAW REFORM PROJECT 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 284-7364 E-mail: bbuskey@aclu.org eedwards@aclu.org - and - Justin Harrison, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF LOUISIANA P.O. Box 56157 New Orleans, LA 70156 Telephone: (504) 522-0628 Facsimile: (888) 534-2995 E-mail: jharrison@laaclu.org - and - William P. Quigley, Esq. LOYOLA UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS COLLEGE OF LAW 7214 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70118 Cell No.: (504) 710-3074 E-mail: quigley77@gmail.com - and - Anna Lellelid-Douffet, Esq. PO Box 19388 New Orleans, LA 70179 Telephone: (504) 224-9670 E-mail: lellelid.law@gmail.com OU JIANG CITY: Wu Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- BAI QIANG WU, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED v. OU JIANG CITY SUPERMARKET INC. d/b/a, OU JIANG SUPERMARKET, XIU OU XIA, "A King" XIA, XIU CHAI XIA, CHENG HUA SUN, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-04942 (E.D.N.Y., September 2, 2016), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages, (2) liquidated damages, (3) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and (4) attorneys' fees and costs. Ou Jiang Supermarket Inc., doing business as Ou Jiang Supermarket, owns and operates a supermarket in Queens County located in Flushing, New York. The Individual Defendants are owners, officers, directors or managing agents of the Company. The Doe Defendants are to-be-identified owners, officers, directors or managing agents of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com PATH INC: Must Defend Against Yelp Data-Mining Privacy Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Yelp cannot escape claims that it invaded Apple device users' privacy by uploading their personal data without consent, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled on September 9. Yelp is one of 14 app developers accused of using a "find friends" feature to mine users' contacts without their permission. The consolidated class action stretches back to 2012 when lead plaintiff Marc Opperman sued Apple, Yelp and others for claims of privacy invasion. During a hearing last month, a Yelp attorney argued app users authorized the crowd-sourcing, business review company to use their contact lists to identify other Yelp users. But the plaintiffs countered Yelp never disclosed it would upload the contacts to its own server in a manner so insecure that even an "unsophisticated hacker" could access the data. In a Sept. 9 ruling, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar denied Yelp's motion for summary judgment, finding that several pieces of evidence suggest Yelp did not explicitly disclose its intent to upload the contact information. Yelp argued the plaintiffs had consented to the upload twice -- first when agreeing to its terms of service and privacy policy when first registering as users and again when authorizing the app's friend finder function. But Tigar found it was "unclear" whether Yelp's off-screen, privacy policy terms, which could only be accessed through a hyperlink, provided adequate notice. Yelp further maintained that it needed to upload the data to match users' contacts with its registered users, and that plaintiffs need not understand every detail of how the process worked to give consent. Tigar rejected that argument, finding those details matter if the app maker's conduct goes beyond what the plaintiffs reasonably believed they consented to. The judge also rebuffed Yelp's claim that the Copyright Act preempted any claims against it for merely reproducing email addresses and other information not protected by copyright law. Tigar said the plaintiffs "do not allege that Yelp violated their privacy rights by simply reproducing or copying the address book data." The upload and analysis of their contacts is what forms the basis of the privacy claims, Tigar added. Ultimately, the judge found the parties' dueling narratives present a "triable issue of fact" that can only be decided by a jury. "Fundamentally, this case is about whether Apple's conduct and that of application developers violated community norms of privacy," Tigar wrote in his 21-page ruling. "A 'reasonable' expectation of privacy is an objective entitlement founded on broadly based and widely accepted community norms." "The Court accepted the fact that Yelp only accessed the email addresses of a user's contacts to help them find friends on Yelp after receiving consent to do so, and did not save or misuse that information," Yelp spokeswoman Rachel Youngblade said. "Nonetheless, the Court appears to state that an online mobile app must inform a user any time data is transmitted from their phone to the online company to make the app work. We disagree, and think that users already understand that online apps require information to be transmitted online." Class attorney Nicholas Carlin called the ruling significant because it means the plaintiffs are likely to prevail in any future summary judgment motions filed by other app developer defendants. "The judge ruled that we didn't have to prove that they did anything with the data beyond what they did in that case -- uploading it and storing it," Carlin said in an interview, addressing the defendants' argument that they were only liable if they used the data for marketing or other purposes. "The use of the data that was not consented to for plaintiffs was sufficient to at least go to the jury and find out if it was sufficiently offensive and constituted an invasion of privacy," Carlin added. Carlin -- nac@phillaw.com -- is with Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin in San Francisco. In July, Tigar certified a class of 480,000 Apple device users whose contact data was uploaded by the social network app Path between November 2011 and February 2012. Tigar indicated at an August hearing that he plans to try the Apple and Path case separately to help form a roadmap for the remainder of the class action. The parties are expected back in court on Nov. 15 to argue the plaintiffs' motion to certify a larger class of all U.S. residents who purchased Apple devices prior to Feb. 8, 2012. That's when Apple implemented new safeguards to prevent "malicious apps" from stealing users' private data, according to the motion. Other app developers named as defendants in the lawsuit include Twitter, Instagram and "Angry Birds" maker Rovio. The case is captioned, MARC OPPERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PATH, INC., et al., Defendants., Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://is.gd/1yUaBK from Leagle.com. PEOPLE AGAINST DIRTY: Accused by Vincent of Deceiving Consumers --------------------------------------------------------------- Wesley Vincent, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and John Does (1-100) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. People Against Dirty, PBC, Case No. 7:16-cv-06936-NSR (S.D.N.Y., September 2, 2016), alleges that the Defendant deceives consumers throughout the state of New York and the country because their products contain synthetic ingredients and are, therefore, neither natural nor naturally derived. People Against Dirty, PBC, markets and sells laundry supplies, cleaning supplies, and personal cleaning supplies throughout the State of New York and the country. The Company's marketing is focused on using natural, clean, safe, non-toxic, hypoallergenic, and naturally derived ingredients. The Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal places of business in San Francisco, California. The Company manufactures, markets, advertises, and distributes the Products throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Says Business Review Report Not Accurate ------------------------------------------------------------ Performance Sports Group Ltd. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2016, that an article appearing in the August 15, 2016 edition of New Hampshire Business Review reported that a Performance Sports Group spokesman "said that the firm is not under any investigation by federal authorities, though it is the target of six class action suits filed in May and consolidated in U.S. District Court in New York." That report is not accurate. While its August 15 announcement referenced an internal investigation, Performance Sports Group is also the subject of inquiries by U.S. and Canadian securities regulators, including an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. It is also a named defendant in only one shareholder class action lawsuit now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. PETER PIPER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Jacobson" Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Diane Jacobson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Peter Piper Incorporated d/b/a Peter Piper Pizza and Unknown Parties named as Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 4:16-cv- 00596-LCK (D. Ariz., September 9, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Peter Piper Incorporated operates a pizza and entertainment restaurant chain throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chant Yedalian, Esq. CHANT & COMPANY 1010 N Central Ave. Glendale, CA 91202 Telephone: (877) 574-7100 Facsimile: (877) 574-9411 - and - David Wendell Williams, Esq. DAVIS MILES MCGUIRE GARDNER PLLC 40 E Rio Salado Pkwy., Ste. 425 Tempe, AZ 85281 Telephone: (480) 733-6800 Facsimile: (480) 733-3748 E-mail: dwilliams@davismiles.com PRECISION CASTPARTS: NECA-IBEW Sues Over Acquisition by Berkshire ----------------------------------------------------------------- NECA-IBEW PENSION TRUST FUND (The Decatur Plan), and ANGELA LOHMANN, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ANGELA LOHMANN REVOCABLE TRUST, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP., MARK DONEGAN, DON R. GRABER, LESTER L. LYLES, DANIEL J. MURPHY, VERNON E. OECHSLE, ULRICH SCHMIDT, RICHARD L. WAMBOLD and TIMOTHY A. WICKS, Case No. 3:16-cv-01756-YY (D. Ore., September 2, 2016), is brought on behalf of the former shareholders of Precision Castparts Corp. for alleged violations of the federal securities laws arising out of the Defendants' dissemination of false and misleading proxy materials in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. PCC is a company headquartered in Portland, Oregon, and, pursuant to an acquisition announced in August 2015 and completed in January 2016, is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. PCC started as a small manufacturer of investment castings and expanded into a worldwide, Fortune 500 company producing investment castings, forgings, and fasteners for aerospace, power, and general industrial customers. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Berne, Esq. Nadia H. Dahab, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 E-mail: gberne@stollberne.com ndahab@stollberne.com - and - Randall J. Baron, Esq. A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq. Eun Jin Lee, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com ricka@rgrdlaw.com elee@rgrdlaw.com - and - Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq. Robin Switzenbaum, Esq. Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: ssavett@bm.net mdavidoff@bm.net rswitzenbaum@bm.net ldeutsch@bm.net NECA-IBEW Pension Trust Fund is also represented by: Patrick J. O'Hara, Esq. CAVANAGH & O'HARA 2319 West Jefferson Street Springfield, IL 62702 Telephone: (217) 544-1771 E-mail: patrick@cavanagh-ohara.com PSA REALTY: Faces "Ghale" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws ----------------------------------------------------------- Bhagwati Ghale, Beauty Akhtar, Sarita Bhandari, and Aruna Tamang, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. PSA Realty Corp., La Quinta Inns, Inc., Kanshik Patel, Chandresh Patel, and Mark Chloupek, in their individual and professional capacity, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-04944 (E.D.N.Y., September 5, 2016), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act in order to remedy Defendants' alleged wrongful withholding of Plaintiffs' lawfully earned minimum and overtime compensation. Plaintiffs also bring these claims under New York Labor Law as well as the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations for alleged violations of minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay and notice and record-keeping requirements. Plaintiffs' job duties included cleaning, maintaining, and managing upkeep of the various rooms throughout the La Quinta Motel. La Quinta engaged the services of PSA Realty Corp., which functioned as an intermediary agency, to recruit and retain Plaintiffs as housekeepers. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq. Elizabeth Vulaj, Esq. PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP 3510 Broadway, Suite 201 Astoria, NY 11106 Phone: (718) 777-0400 Fax: (718) 777-0599 R&A OYSTERS: Class of H-2B Workers Certified in "Cordova" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- For purposes of settlement only, the Hon. William H. Steele granted the motion for conditional certification of the settlement class filed in the lawsuit styled MIGUEL ANGEL FUENTES CORDOVA, et al. v. R & A OYSTERS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00462-WS-M (S.D. Ala.). The Court conditionally certifies Count Three of the Action as a class action on behalf of this settlement class: [A]ll those individuals admitted as H-2B temporary foreign workers pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), who were employed by the Defendants in Alabama between October 8, 2008 until the filing date of the present action, and who were paid on an hourly basis. Judge Steele also appoints Miguel Angel Fuentes Cordova as class representative. To the extent the Plaintiffs seek appointment of Leovardo Morales Inclan as additional class representative, Judge Steele denies their motion. Judge Steele also appoints Southern Poverty Law Center as class counsel to represent the settlement class. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LAkIlsqo REITER BUNSIC: "Casimir" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- LYONEL CASIMIR, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. REITER BUNSIC CONTRACTORS, INC., a Florida Profit Corporations, and LOUIS F. BUNSIC, an individual, Case No. 9:16-cv-81548-DMM (S.D. Fla., September 6, 2016), is brought to recover overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Reiter Bunsic Contractors, Inc., is a Florida corporation that owns and operates a construction business in Palm Beach County, Florida. The Company holds a Certified General Contractor, Construction Business License, according to the Florida license board. Louis F. Bunsic, a Florida resident, owns, manages, directs, or operates the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maguene D. Cadet, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A. 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Telephone: (561) 853-2212 Facsimile: (561) 853-2213 E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com RIVMAR CORPORATION: Sued by Vazquez Over FLSA and IMWL Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE VAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated v. RIVMAR CORPORATION and JESUS MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:16-cv-08636 (N.D. Ill., September 2, 2016), is brought by the Plaintiff, who seeks redress for alleged violations of his rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Rivmar is incorporated in Illinois. Jesus Martinez is the owner and president of Rivmar. He controls Rivmar's operations and enacted the illegal pay practices set forth in the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Fish, Esq. Kim Hilton, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM 200 E 5th Ave., Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 Facsimile: (630) 778-0400 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com khilton@fishlawfirm.com - and - Eduardo J. Gil, Esq. THE GIL LAW GROUP 605 N. Broadway Aurora, IL 60505 Telephone: (630) 906-0144 Facsimile: (630) 906-0147 ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Magistrate Judge Says Case Should be Trimmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Root9B Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 16, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a U.S. Magistrate Judge has issued a recommendation that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in a class action complaint. The Company and two senior executives of the Company are named as defendants in a class action proceeding filed on June 23, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On September 24, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to transfer the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On October 14, 2015, the Court appointed David Hampton as Lead Plaintiff and approved Hampton's selection of the law firm Levi & Korsinsky LLP as Lead Counsel. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on January 4, 2016. The Amended Complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a class of persons who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between October 17, 2014 and June 15, 2015. In general, the Amended Complaint alleges that false or misleading statements were made or that there was a failure to make appropriate disclosures concerning the Company's cyber security business and products. On February 18, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss and the Company replied on May 4, 2016. On August 3, 2016, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion to strike certain exhibits from Defendants' motion to dismiss, and on August 4, 2016, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the parties have 14 days from the issuance of the recommendations within which to object to the recommendations. "We cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit; however, the Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to defend against the lawsuit vigorously. No liability has been recorded in the financial statements for this matter," the Company said. RVS EXPRESS: Faces "Maniago" Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against RVS Express LLC, RVS Express Trucking Company, RVS Line Inc., RVS Line LLC, RVS Transport LLC, and Does 1-50. The case is captioned Noel Maniago, on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. RVS Express LLC, RVS Express Trucking Company, RVS Line Inc., RVS Line LLC, RVS Transport LLC, and Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2016-00200048-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., September 8, 2016). The Defendants operate a freight shipping and trucking company headquartered at 412 8th St SW, Auburn, WA 98001. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Blair Corren, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CORREN & CORREN 5345 N. El Dorado St. #7 Stockton, CA 95207 Telephone: (209) 478-2621 Facsimile: (209) 478-3038 E-mail: office@correnlaw.com SANDBOX LOGISTICS: Rayfield Sues on Behalf of Equipment Operators ----------------------------------------------------------------- DARIAN RAYFIELD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SANDBOX LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv- 02231 (D. Colo., September 2, 2016), alleges that Sandbox required the Plaintiff to work more than 40 hours in a workweek as an equipment operator, and has misclassified him and other EOs throughout the United States as exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sandbox Logistics, LLC, is a foreign limited liability company organized under the laws of Texas and headquartered in Houston, Texas. Sandbox is a commercial support service company within the meaning of the applicable Colorado Minimum Wage Orders because it is a business or enterprise that is directly or indirectly engaged in providing service to other commercial firms through the use of service employees such as the Plaintiff and the Class Members. The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com SCHWABE NORTH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Big Thyme Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Big Thyme Enterprises, Inc., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Schwabe North America Incorporated, Enzymatic Therapy, LLC, and John Does 1-5, Case No. 3:16-cv-03050-CMC (D.S.C., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. Schwabe North America Incorporated manufactures and distributes dietary supplements in the United States and internationally. Enzymatic Therapy, LLC is a manufacturer of vitamins, dietary supplements and natural medicines. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Gressette Felder Jr., Esq. MCGOWAN HOOD AND FELDER 1517 Hampton Street Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 779-0100 E-mail: jfelder@mcgowanhood.com SELECT MEDIA: Faces "Brown" Class Suit in California Super. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Select Media Services LLC, The News Group Inc., The News Group LP, TNG GP, and Does 1-10. The case is captioned Audrey L. Brown, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Select Media Services LLC, The News Group Inc., The News Group LP, TNG GP, and Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2016- 00200076-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., September 10, 2016). The Defendants own and operate a newspaper company in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Carver, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL L. CARVER Near East Lassen Ave and Ceres Ave 1395 Ridgewood Drive, Suite 300 Chico, CA 95973 Telephone: (530) 891-8503 E-mail: chico@laborlawoffice.com SILVER CREEK: Ashcraft Class Suit Removed to E.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Ashcraft Group, LLC, for itself and all others similarly situated v. Silver Creek Oil & Gas, LLC, Case No. 16-CJ-72, was removed from the Seminole County District Court to the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Oklahoma (Muskogee). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:16-cv- 00388-JHP to the proceeding. Silver Creek Oil & Gas, LLC is an oil and gas company, and engages in the acquisition, development, and exploration of unconventional natural gas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kandi Jepsen Pate, Esq. PATE & WOLFE 1900 NW Expwy, Ste 1300 Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 858-0012 Facsimile: (405) 858-0013 The Defendant is represented by: Dawson A. Brotemarkle, Esq. Heather L. Cupp, Esq. J. Kevin Hayes, Esq. HALL ESTILL HARDWICK GABLE GOLDEN & NELSON 320 S Boston Ave, Ste 200 Tulsa, OK 74103-3706 Telephone: (918) 594-0400 Facsimile: (918) 594-0505 E-mail: dbrotemarkle@hallestill.com hcupp@hallestill.com khayes@hallestill.com SMG HOLDINGS: Urbano, et al. Seek Class & Subclass Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled OSCAR URBANO, an individual, MICHAEL RANGEL, an individual, and DEMETHA STROMAN, an individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SMG HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; SMG, a business entity, form unknown; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-00603-AG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following classes and subclasses: 1. The "Ontario Class" "All persons employed by Defendants SMG and SMG Holdings, Inc. ("SMG" or "Defendants") at any time from January 27, 2011 through the date of the order granting class certification who worked as non-exempt employees at Defendants' Ontario, California location"; 2. The "Stockton Class" "All persons employed by Defendants SMG and SMG Holdings, Inc. ("SMG" or "Defendants") at any time from January 27, 2011 through the date of the order granting class certification who worked as non-exempt and non-union employees at Defendants' Stockton, California location"; 3. The "Long Beach Class" "All persons employed by Defendants SMG and SMG Holdings, Inc. ("SMG" or "Defendants") at any time from January 27, 2011 through the date of the order granting class certification who worked as non-exempt employees in the "SAVOR" food and beverage department at Defendants' Long Beach, California location. 4. Ontario Meal Period Subclass A: "all "Ontario Class" members who worked at least one shift over 5 hours"; 5. Ontario Meal Period Subclass B: "all "Ontario Class" members who worked at least one shift over 10 hours"; 6. Stockton Meal Period Subclass C: "all "Stockton Class" members who worked at least one shift over 5 hours"; 7. Stockton Meal Period Subclass D: "all "Stockton Class" members who worked at least one shift over 10 hours"; 8. Long Beach Meal Period Subclass E: "all "Long Beach Class" members who worked at least one shift over 5 hours"; 9. Long Beach Meal Period Subclass F: "all "Long Beach Class" members who worked at least one shift over 10 hours"; 10. Ontario Rest Period Subclass A: "all "Ontario Class" members who worked at least one shift over 3.5 hours"; 11. Stockton Rest Period Subclass B: "all "Stockton Class" members who worked at least one shift over 3.5 hours"; 12. Long Beach Rest Period Subclass C: "all "Long Beach Class" members who worked at least one shift over 3.5 hours"; 13. Ontario UCL Subclass A: "all persons employed by SMG as non-exempt employees in Ontario, California at any time from January 27, 2011 until the date of the order granting class certification"; 14. Stockton UCL Subclass B: "all persons employed by SMG as non-exempt non-union employees in Stockton, California at any time from January 27, 2011 until the date of the order granting class certification"; 15. Long Beach UCL Subclass C: "all persons employed by SMG as non-exempt SAVOR food and beverage employees in Long Beach, California at any time from January 27, 2011 until the date of the order granting class certification"; 16. Ontario Minimum Wage Subclass A: "all "Ontario Class" members who were not paid for all time they were clocked in, as indicated in SMG's time records"; 17. Stockton Minimum Wage Subclass B: all "Stockton Class" members who were not paid for all time they were clocked in, as indicated in SMG's time records; 18. Long Beach Minimum Wage Subclass C: "all "Long Beach Class" members who were not paid for all time they were clocked in, as indicated in SMG's time and pay records"; 19. Ontario Overtime Subclass A: "all "Ontario Class" members who worked over 8 hours in any day and/or over 40 hours in any work week and were not paid overtime compensation for all time they were clocked in, as indicated by SMG's time and pay records"; 20. Stockton Overtime Subclass B: "all "Stockton Class" members who worked over 8 hours in any day and/or over 40 hours in any work week and were not paid overtime compensation for all time they were clocked in, as indicated by SMG's time and pay records"; 21. Long Beach Overtime Subclass C: "all "Long Beach Class" members who worked over 8 hours in any day and/or over 40 hours in any work week and were not paid overtime compensation for all time they were clocked in, as indicated by SMG's time and pay records"; 22. Ontario Reimbursement Subclass A: "all "Ontario Class" members who paid for uniform items, including black pants/Dickies and/or black steel-toed or non-slip shoes and/or had to use their personal cell phone for work related purposes and were not reimbursed by SMG for such costs"; 23. Stockton Reimbursement Subclass B: "all "Stockton Class" members who paid for uniform items, including black or khaki pants and/or had to use their personal cell phone for work related purposes and were not reimbursed by SMG for such costs"; and 24. Long Beach Reimbursement Subclass C: "all "Long Beach Class" members who paid for uniform items, including blank pants, solid shirts, black non-slip shoes and/or ties and/or had to use their personal cell phone for work related purposes and were not reimbursed by SMG for such costs". The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Oscar Urbano, Michael Rangel, and Demetha Stroman as class representatives, and appoint Plaintiffs as representatives of the class and appoint Matern Law Group, PC as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E1y0oGeX The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Dalia Khalili, Esq. Shayna E. Dickstein, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Tel: (310) 531 1900 Fax: (310) 531 1901 SUMMIT NURSING: Faces "Abrigo" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA ERMINA ZELAYA ABRIGO and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. SUMMIT NURSING SERVICES, INC., MELVA BARRETT, BANVILLE BARRETT, RICHARD THELWELL, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-23812-JAL (S.D. Fla., September 5, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. SUMMIT NURSING SERVICES, INC. provides home health care. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Phone: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM SWISHER HYGIENE: Motion to Dismiss Berger Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Swisher Hygiene Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19, 2016, that Defendants anticipated arguing before the court on the motions to dismiss a class action lawsuit on September 20, 2016. On September 8, 2015, a lawsuit seeking to be certified as a class action (Paul Berger v. Swisher Hygiene Inc., et al., Case No. 2015 CH 13325 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Co.)) was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division by Paul Berger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against Swisher Hygiene Inc., the members of Swisher Hygiene Inc.'s board of directors, individually, and Ecolab in connection with the Sale Transaction. The plaintiff has alleged that (i) faced with an ongoing investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the USAO, the individual defendants embarked upon a self-interested scheme to sell off Swisher International, Inc.'s assets and to liquidate Swisher Hygiene Inc., (ii) the individual defendants, through an alleged insufficient process, caused Swisher Hygiene Inc. to agree to sell substantially all of its assets for insufficient consideration, (iii) each member of Swisher Hygiene Inc.'s. Board of Directors is interested in the Sale Transaction and the plan of dissolution, and (iv) the proxy statement was materially misleading and/or incomplete. The causes of action set forth in the complaint are (i) a claim for breaches of the fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, fair dealing and due care, (ii) a claim for failure to disclose, and (iii) a claim against Ecolab for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the consummation of the Sale Transaction unless and until defendants provide all material facts in the proxy statement, and the plaintiff also seeks compensatory and/or rescissory damages as allowed by law for the plaintiff. On October 6, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Illinois action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619 given that a substantially similar action, Raul, was pending in North Carolina (the "North Carolina action"). In light of the proceedings in the North Carolina action, whereby the aiding and abetting claims were dismissed with prejudice and the remaining claims were voluntarily dismissed, on May 13, 2016, Defendants' 5/2-619 motion was voluntarily withdrawn. On May 27, 2016, Defendants then filed motions to dismiss the Illinois action under 5/2-615 and 5/2-619, and the Individual Defendants also moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 2/301. On July 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss. On July 29, 2016, Defendants filed a reply brief. Defendants anticipate arguing before the court on the motions to dismiss on September 20, 2016. TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Oct. 6 Hearing on Motions to Transfer Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- TerraForm Global, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, that a court has scheduled a hearing for October 6, 2016, on the pending motions to transfer class action cases to the Southern District of New York, the jurisdiction in which SunEdison's bankruptcy is pending. On October 23, 2015, October 30, 2015, December 3, 2015, December 9, 2015 and January 4, 2016, separate purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo against the Company, SunEdison, certain officers and directors of the Company and SunEdison, and the underwriters of the IPO. Additionally, on October 29, 2015 and November 5, 2015, separate purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the same defendants. The class action plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"). The class action complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in the Registration Statement for the IPO regarding SunEdison and its recent operating results and business strategy. Among other relief, the class action complaints seek class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the applicable court should deem just and proper. One of the state actions was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in February 2016. On April 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison's voluntary petition for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants removed the remaining state actions to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 27, 2016, the plaintiffs in the cases removed from state court filed motions to remand. On June 1, 2016, the defendants filed motions to transfer the cases to the Southern District of New York, the jurisdiction in which SunEdison's bankruptcy is pending. The Court has scheduled a hearing on the pending motions for October 6, 2016. The Company intends to defend the class action lawsuits vigorously. The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the complaints and, as a result, is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of such lawsuits or that an adverse resolution of these lawsuits would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position and results of operations. TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Michigan Retirement Sys. Seeks Transfer of Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- TerraForm Global, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, that on July 27, 2016, lead plaintiff Municipal Employees' Retirement System of Michigan in the Horowitz, et. al v. SunEdison, Inc. et al. action (E.D. Mo.) moved to transfer various actions pending in federal district courts to the Southern District of New York (SDNY) for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings before the Multidistrict Litigation Panel. The following cases involving TerraForm Global, Inc. are subject to this motion to transfer: * Pyramid Holdings, Inc. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.) * Beltran v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.) * Badri v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.) * Fraser v. Wuebbels et al. (N.D. Cal.) * Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.) * Patel v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.) * Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. SunEdison, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.) * Glenview Capital Partners, L.P. et al. v. SunEdison, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.) * Omega Capital Investors et al. v. SunEdison, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.) TEXAS COASTAL: "Sury" Suit Seeks Lost Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ SHARATH SURY, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. TEXAS COASTAL ENERGY COMPANY, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, the Defendant, Case No. Be 632799 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 6, 2016), seeks all applicable penalties, lost wages and restitution pursuant to, among other statutes, the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. According to the complaint, when it hired Plaintiff, Defendant orally agreed to annual compensation for Plaintiff of $125,000, paid bi-weekly, plus a bonus of 3% of total revenues generated by Defendant's offices under Plaintiffs management. The Plaintiff resigned effective December 31, 2014. At the time of his resignation, Plaintiff was owed no less than $81,894.00, plus interest, in compensation from Defendant, all of which remains due and owing. Texas Coastal is an oil and gas exploration and production company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan D. Lapidus, Esq. Daniel C.Lapidus, Esq. Jim D. Bauch, Esq. LAPIDUS & LAPIDUS 177 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE BEVERLY Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 550 8700 Facsimile: (310) 943 2471 E-mail: ryan@lapiduslaw.com dan@lapiduslaw.com jim@lapiduslaw.com TODISCO SERVICES: Sued in Mass. Super. Ct. Over Billing Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER SILVA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TODISCO SERVICES INC. d/b/a TODISCO TOWING, the Defendant, Case No. 16-2778E (Mass. Super. Ct., Sep. 6, 2016), seeks declaratory judgment against Todisco's billing practices, in violation of Massachusetts statutory, regulatory and/or common law. According to the complaint, Todisco knowingly engages in unlawful, unfair and/or deceptive billing practices as it relates to its towing and storage services. Specifically, Silva contends that Todisco has a practice of demanding and/or collecting impermissible amounts of money in connection with its towing and storage practices in violation of the requirements of law relating to the same. Todisco is a towing company which provides towing, transportation, road service and truck repair; to individuals and businesses in Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Yasi, Esq. Kevin J. McCullough, Esq. FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI PC 2 Salem Green, Suite 2 Salem, MA 01970 Telephone: (617) 231 7829 E-mail: jyasi@forrestlamothe.com kmccullough@forrestlamothe.com TOMMIE COPPER: "Herst" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled David Herst, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tommie Copper Inc., Intervenor Plaintiffs William Lucero, Rhonda Boggs, Jerome Jeffy, and Sandy Kontura, Case No. 9:15-cv-81611, was transferred from the United States District Court - District of Florida Southern to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-07008-UA to the proceeding. Tommie Copper Inc. manufactures and sells copper-infused apparel. The Plaintiff is represented by: Grey Tesh, Esq. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite P300 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 600-4166 Facsimile: (561) 697-8317 E-mail: gt@greytesh.com - and - William Charles Wright, Esq. WRIGHT LAW OFFICE 301 Clematis Street, Suite 3000 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 Facsimile: (561) 514-0905 E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com The Defendant is represented by: Mitchell Edward Widom, Esq. BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD 1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131-3456 Telephone: (305) 374-7580 Facsimile: (305) 351-2265 E-mail: mwidom@bilzin.com The Intervenor Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald Marron, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com - and - Cullin Avram O'Brien, Esq. CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A. 6541 NE 21st Way Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Telephone: (561) 676-6370 Facsimile: (561) 320-0285 E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com UNITED AIRLINES: "Martin" Class Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Francine Martin, Jeffrey A. Martin and all others similarly situated v. United Airlines Inc., Case No. CJ-2016-4125, was removed from the Oklahoma County District Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv- 01042-F to the proceeding. United Airlines Inc. is a major American airline headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Martin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY E. MARTIN 6609 Whispering Grove Dr. Oklahoma City, OK 73169 Telephone: (405) 261-0002 Facsimile: (405) 261-2126 E-mail: jem@martinlawchicago.com The Defendant is represented by: Mark R. McPhail, Esq. SPRADLING KENNEDY & MCPHAIL LLP 1601 NW Expressway, Suite 1750 Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 418-2700 Facsimile: (405) 418-2705 E-mail: mrmcphail@spradlinglaw.com - and - Sondra A. Hemeryck, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 233 S Wacker Dr., Suite 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 258-5500 Facsimile: (312) 258-5600 E-mail: shemeryck@schiffhardin.com VISION FINANCIAL: Court Enters Default Judgment in "Dolemba" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Thomas M. Durkin entered an order entering default judgment in the lawsuit styled SCOTT DOLEMBA, individually, and HERMINIA DOLEMBA, individually and on behalf of the class described herein v. VISION FINANCIAL CORP., Case No. 1:16-cv-03567 (N.D. Ill.). Default judgment is entered against Defendant Vision Financial Corp., and in the Plaintiffs' favor, in the amount of $6,000 for Plaintiff Herminia Dolemba in statutory damages and $1,000 for Plaintiff Scott Dolemba in statutory damages, plus $6,627 in attorney's fees and $442 in costs of suit. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F7yxVE46 WARRIOR AIR: Faces "Cruz" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ LEONARDO WELLINGTON NIEVES CRUZ a/k/a WILLIE CORNEJO and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. WARRIOR AIR, INC. d/b/a RAMONA MOTEL, FERNANDO MILLON, LUZ STELLA MILLON, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-23811-CMA (S.D. Fla., September 5, 2016), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a front desk receptionist and housekeeper. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Phone: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.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. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2016. 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 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *