/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/161130.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 30, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 239 Headlines 1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Thompson" Suit in S.D. Calif. 1-800-FLOWERS: "Conklin" Suit Seeks Certification of Class 52 VAN: Pedraza Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA 2645 MEAT: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Villegas" Suit Says 5150 RACE TRAILERS: Class Certification Sought in "Romero" Suit ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Reconsideration Bid to Be Heard Dec. 16 ADEPTUS HEALTH: Laborers' Local Sues Over IPO, SPOs Disclosure ALOTERRA FARMS: Faces "Whitley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ANTERO RESOURCES: Meinig Sues Over Denied Rents and Royalties ARKANSAS: "Avery" Suit Seeks Certification of Detainees Class ASSET RECOVERY: "Guthrie" Suit Seeks Certification of Class AUDI AG: Faces "Platt" Class Suit in North. Dist. California AVID TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Mohanty" Securities Suit in Massachusetts BAKER BRAVERMAN: Amesbury Seeks Certification of Classes BAXTER INT'L: Faces Antitrust Suit Over IV Solutions in Illinois BERKS, PA: Faces "Derr" Class Suit in East. District Pennsylvania BF LABS: "Alexander" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes BF WASTE: "Macias" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA BLATT & HASENMILLER: "Lillegard" Suit Seeks Class Certification BLUESTEM BRANDS: "Norris" Suit Overtime Pay Under FLSA BUFFALO TRACE: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Bottle Labeling C BASTOS: Sandoval Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA CALIFORNIA: Classes Certified in "Amador" Strip-Search Suit CALLSMART INC: Dolemba Class Cert. Bid Continued to Jan. 26 CARSON SMITHFIELD: Class Certification Sought in "Sievert" Suit CATALINA RESTAURANT: Class Cert. Sought in Warn Act Litigation CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Pressman Seeks Class Certification Under TCPA CHAPEI LLC: Court Refuses to Conditionally Certify "Wang" Suit CHARTER TOWNSHIP: Court Denied Class Cert. Without Prejudice COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Suits in New Jersey COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Stathakos, et al. Seek Class Certification COLUMBINE MANAGEMENT: "Null" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA COOK COUNTY, IL: "Rogers" Suit Seeks Certification of Class CONSTAR FINANCIAL: Hernandez Moves for Certification of Class CONTROL4 CORPORATION: "Panusis" Suit Seeks Certification of Class COSTAMAR EXPRESS: Faces "Solis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CRESCENT CONSULTING: Faces "Whitlow" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT PALM BEACH, FL: Boyce Trans Seeks Certification of Class DILLON LAW: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid Continued to Jan. 6 DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Palmer" Suit Seeks Certification of Class DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Feb. 3 Hearing on Securities Accord DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Shumake" Securities Class Action DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Soontjens" Securities Class Action E-COMMERCE CHINA: Fasano et al. File Securities Suit Over Merger ELECTRICITY MAINE: Sued Over Electricity Cost Savings Scheme EHT PHARMACY: Class Certification Hearing Set for Jan 20 EMERSON ELECTRIC: Class Cert. Sought in Marketing and Sales Case EUROSTAR INC: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Disability Discrimination FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Offsets $6MM Expense With Deal in Vendor Suit FLORIDA: Certification of Class Sought in "McKnight" Suit FRONTON HOLDINGS: Class Certification Bid in "Rife" Suit Denied GBC TOWSON: Refuses to Pay Latina Workers, "Leiva" Suit Alleges GENERAL MOTORS: Sued by Puente Over Wrong Fuel Economy Estimates GILBERT MEGA: Accused by "Medina" Suit of Failing to Pay Wages HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Tripp Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA HOSTA HOLDINGS: Class Certification Sought in "Bellanich" Suit HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Wylie" Class Suit in Cent. Dist. California INGRAM & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Redding" Suit Says INSIEME INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Melgar" Suit Says INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Sued Over Sale of Company to Genesys IXIA: Settlement in "Santore" Suit Became Final on August 31 JOYCE STEEL: Keith et al. Seek to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA LADENBURG THALMANN: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Fuse Suits v. Miller LADENBURG THALMANN: Bids to Junk Plains All American Suit Pending LADENBURG THALMANN: Defends Consolidated Suit vs. American Realty LADENBURG THALMANN: Settlement Reached in Securities America Suit LASERTONE CORP: Faces "Shakur" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LEE COUNTY, FL: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Lopez" LEGACY HOME: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Expects No Add'l Expenses in Cadillac Suit MEMORIAL HEALTH: Class Certification Sought in "Myers" Suit MODEL N INC: Excludes Expenses in Securities Suits in 4Q Results MORTGAGE CONTRACTING: Class Cert. Bid Taken Under Submission MULTI-SERVICIOS: Hernandez Sues Over Check-Cashing Services NATIONAL RETAIL: Rainboth-Venditti Seek Certification of Class NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Denied Class Certification in "Davis" NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Fekete" Suit Claims NEW CHINA: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages O.B. PARRIS: Sued Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties OAKS DIAGNOSTICS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Break OCWEN FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Securities Litigation ON SEMICONDUCTOR: "Woo" Shareholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed PACKERS SANITATION: Faces "Kelly" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation PPG INDUSTRIES: Amos Class Cert. Bid Denied Pending Discovery PREMIER NUTRITION: Sued Over Joint Juice Products False Ads PRICELINE GROUP: Faces 30 Suits Over Travel Transaction Taxes PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Registration Statement PULTE HOME: "Parker" Suit Seeks Certification of Class RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Sued in N.Y. Over Disability Discrimination READY PAC: "Carcamo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code RIVERDALE CAR: Faces "Pineda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ROCHESTER GAS: Fails to Pay Earned Wages and Overtime, Rode Says ROSE TREE CONDOMINIUM: Sued by ADA Realty for Mishandling Issues SCOTT KERNAN: Court Denied Class Certification in "Hicks" SPORTS GRILL: "Fletcher" Suit Seeks Certification of Class SSC LEXINGTON: "Allen" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class SUBWAY 39077: Judge Scola Denied FLSA Class Cert. Bid in "Aguiar" SYMPHONY DIAGNOSTIC: Reddick Seeks Certification of Classes SYSCO GUEST: Gorrs Motels Seeks Certification of Class T & B MANAGEMENT: Chavez, et al. Seek Certification of Class TEXAS BRINE: Sanchez Seeks Certification of Land Owners Class TEAM WOW: "Nelson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA TIMELINE LOGISTICS: Sauls Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA TINDER INC: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over "Anti-American" Pricing U.S. BANK: "Smith" Suit Seeks Certification of Class UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Metter" Suit Seeks to Scrap Cancellation Fee UNITED RECOVERY: Kroell May Refile Bid to Certify, Court Rules UNITED STATES: Seeks Until Nov. 30 to File Response in "Reyes" UNO CONSTRUCTION: "Rosario" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA VMWARE INC: Suits Arising From Dell Acquisition Remains Pending VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: $9-Mil. Settlement Paid in Third Quarter WELLS FARGO: "Miller" Suit Seeks Certification of Class WEST COAST TRUCKING: "Perez" Suit Alleges Overtime Wage Violation WHATABURGER RESTAURANTS: Zepeda Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA WILLIS TOWERS: Consolidated Suit Over Merger Has Been Closed WILLIS TOWERS: Final Approval Hearing of Stanford Deal on Jan. 20 WILLIS TOWERS: Meriter Suit vs. TWDE Remains Pending in Wisconsin WILLIS TOWERS: Unit May Seek Summary Judgment in "Sanchez" Suit YAHOO! INC: "Pawlik" Files Suit Over Data Breach ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Awaits Final OK of "Reyes" Suit Settlement ZIPTAX LLC: Meyer Given Until Jan. 25 to Re-File Class Cert Bid ********* 1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Thompson" Suit in S.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------- J Thompson and William P. Duncanson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Vision Direct, Inc. and Does 1-15, Case No. 2:16-cv-01183-TC (S.D. Cal., November 21, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to restrain competition in the direct-to-consumer and online markets for contact lenses. The Defendants are online retailer of contact lenses and vision care supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. David W. Mitchell, Esq. Brian O. O'Mara, Esq. Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq. Carmen A. Medici, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com davidm@rgrdlaw.com bomara@rgrdlaw.com sjodlowski@rgrdlaw.com cmedici@rgrdlaw.com - and - George C. Aguilar, Esq. Gregory Del Gaizo, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP BRIAN J. ROBBINS 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com gdelgaizo@robbinsarroyo.com 1-800-FLOWERS: "Conklin" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled VIRGINIA CONKLIN, and ALYSON CLARK, the Plaintiffs, v. 1-800-FLOWERS SERVICE SUPPORT CENTER, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00675-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to: 1. conditionally certify this case as a collective action for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA, for a conditional class defined as: "all call center "Customer Service Representatives", or similar job title, employed by 1-800-Flowers Services Support Center, Inc. anywhere in the United States or its territories, who were not paid for the overtime hours they worked"; 2. approve the Plaintiffs' proposed class notice and consent to sue forms; 3. compel Defendant 1-800-Flowers Service Support Center, Inc. to produce, within 14 days of the Court's order granting this motion, the full name, all known addresses, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers of class members; 4. permit Plaintiffs' counsel to send, within 14 days of receipt of the class list from Defendant, the Plaintiffs' proposed class notice and consent to sue forms via U.S. Mail and electronic mail to class members; 5. allow class members to file consents to sue using an electronic signature service; 6. allow class members 90 days to return their consent to sue forms to Plaintiff's counsel; 7. require 1-800-Flowers post a copy of the class notice in all call centers; and 8. appoint Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty, & Proctor, P.A. and Johnson Becker, P.L.L.C, as interim class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9aVEIHaV The Plaintiffs are represented by: William F. Cash III, Esq. Brandon L. Bogle, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435 7059 E-mail: bcash@levinlaw.com bbogle@levinlaw.com - and - Tim J. Becker, Esq. David H. Grounds, Esq. Molly E. Nephew, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone: (612) 436 1800 Facsimile: (612) 436 1801 E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com mnephew@johnsonbecker.com 52 VAN: Pedraza Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ TOMAS PEDRAZA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 52 VAN FOOD CORP. (d/b/a BLAKE & TODD), 47TH STREET FOOD, INC., (d/b/a BLAKE & TODD RESTAURANT), 53RD STREET FOOD LLC, (d/b/a BLAKE & TODD RESTAURANT), and ALEX RACHOWIN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09019 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Pedraza and all similarly situated employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without paying them appropriate overtime compensation or spread of hours compensation, as required by federal and state laws. Alex Rachowin owns a chain of restaurants/catering services in New York, New York under the trade name "Blake & Todd Restaurant". The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 2645 MEAT: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Villegas" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Villegas, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. 2645 Meat Corp. d/b/a Associated Supermarket and Anthony Fernandez, Case No. 1:16-cv-09111 (S.D.N.Y., November 22, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a meat shop located at 2645 Webster Ave, Bronx, NY, 10458-4270. Jose Villegas is a pro se plaintiff. 5150 RACE TRAILERS: Class Certification Sought in "Romero" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned EDUARDO MEIJA ROMERO, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. 5150 RACE TRAILERS, INC., and MICHAEL DEAN WALKER, individually, Case No. 1:16-cv-00063 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to: (1) authorize the case to proceed as a collective action for overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of non-exempt employees who worked as laborers for Defendant within the last three years; (2) issue an order directing the Defendant to immediately provide a list of names, last known addresses, and last known telephone numbers for all putative class members within the last three years; (3) issue an order that notice be prominently posted at the Defendant's facility where putative class members work, attached to current employees' next scheduled paycheck, and be mailed to the employees so that they can assert their claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation; and (4) order that the opt in the Plaintiffs' Consent Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zIGKXPa6 The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Russell, Esq. Emily S. Emmons, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com eemmons@gilbertfirm.com - and - Heather M. Collins, Esq. COLLINS & HUNTER PLLC 7000 Executive Center Drive, Suite 320 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 724-1996 E-mail: heather@collinshunter.com The Defendant is represented by: M. Reid Estes, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 424 Church St., Suite 1401 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 620-1737 Facsimile: (844) 670-6009 E-mail: restes@dickinsonwright.com ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Reconsideration Bid to Be Heard Dec. 16 --------------------------------------------------------------- ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the hearing on its motion for reconsideration of the order denying the motion to dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit is scheduled for December 16, 2016. In March 2015, following the Company's announcement of the update to the timing of its planned NDA submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID and the subsequent decline of the price of its common stock, two putative securities class action complaints (captioned Rihn v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 15-cv-0575-BTM-DHB, and Wright v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 15-cv-0593- BTM-DHB) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court") against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The complaints generally alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the timing of the Company's planned NDA submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On April 10 and June 1, 2015, the Court entered orders deferring the defendants' response to the Rihn and Wright complaints until after the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and assigned lead counsel. On May 12, 2015, several putative stockholders filed separate motions to consolidate the two actions and be appointed lead plaintiff. On September 8, 2015, the Court issued an order consolidating the two actions, appointing lead plaintiff, and assigning lead counsel. On November 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint with the Court which, like the prior complaints, accused the defendants of making materially false and misleading statements regarding the anticipated timing of the Company's planned NDA submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID. On January 15, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On September 19, 2016, the Court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On October 18, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order denying the motion to dismiss. On October 21, 2016, the Company filed its answer to the consolidated complaint. The hearing on the Company's motion for reconsideration is scheduled for December 16, 2016. The Company has assessed such legal proceedings, and given the unpredictability inherent in litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may result from such legal proceedings, and it has not accrued any amounts in connection with such legal proceedings other than ongoing attorneys' fees. ADEPTUS HEALTH: Laborers' Local Sues Over IPO, SPOs Disclosure -------------------------------------------------------------- Laborers' Local 235 Benefit Funds, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. Adeptus Health Inc., Thomas S. Hall, Timothy L. Fielding, Richard Covert, Daniel W. Rosenberg, Gregory W. Scott, Ronald L. Taylor, Jeffery S. Vender, Steven V. Napolitano, Daniel J. Hosler, Stephen M. Mengert, Sterling Partners, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Evercore Group L.L.C., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., RBC Capital Markets LLC, Dougherty & Company LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and BMO Capital Markets Corp., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00881-ALM (E.D. Tex., November 16, 2016), is a securities suit that alleges that in Adeptus Health's Offering Documents for the June 25, 2014 IPO, May 2015 SPO, July 2015 SPO, and June 2016 SPO, Defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and future prospects. Adeptus Health Inc. is one of the largest operators of independent freestanding emergency rooms in the United States and has a large network of partnerships with certain healthcare systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger F. Claxton, Esq. LAW FIRM OF ROGER F. CLAXTON 10,000 N. Central Expressway, Suite 725 Dallas, TX 75231 Phone: (214) 969-9029 Fax: (214) 953-0583 E-mail: roger@claxtonlaw.com - and - Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Phone: (561) 394-3399 E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com ALOTERRA FARMS: Faces "Whitley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Whitely, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Aloterra Farms, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02827-SO (N.D. Ohio, November 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Aloterra Farms, LLC operates a crop farm located in Conneaut, OH. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris P. Wido, Esq. Brian D. Spitz, Esq. THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC 25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200 Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 291-4744 Facsimile: (216) 291-5744 E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com Brian.Spitz@spitzlawfirm.com ANTERO RESOURCES: Meinig Sues Over Denied Rents and Royalties ------------------------------------------------------------- LESLIE TOOD MEINIG and LINDA MEINIG, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ANTERO RESOURCES, INC., and ANTERO RESOURCES APPALACHIAN CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00222-IMK (N.D. W.Va., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks compensatory and punitive damages exceeding the sum of $75,000 for each Plaintiff and for each putative class member. The Plaintiffs were allegedly damaged by Defendants' misrepresentation and fraudulent misconduct in that Plaintiffs were denied rents and royalties under the terms of their leases or as required by law. According to the complaint, Defendants misrepresented to Plaintiffs that Defendants were entitled to take deductions from Plaintiffs' royalty, take the amount of deductions they took, reduced Plaintiffs' royalty payments, overcharged Plaintiffs for services, and/or wrongfully claimed Plaintiffs' royalty due was less than the amount actually due. The Plaintiffs are co-owners by succession of partial interest in certain oil and natural gas mineral interests lying and being in Harrison County, West Virginia. Antero, by and through their predecessor, subsidiaries and/or partners, leased properties and acquired the leases of properties in West Virginia. The terms of Plaintiffs' Lease provide that Defendants, as successors, are required to pay Plaintiffs $75.00 each three months in advance for the gas for each every gas well drilled on such premises. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. Powell & Majestro, PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite P1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346 2889 Facsimile: (304) 346 2895 E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com ARKANSAS: "Avery" Suit Seeks Certification of Detainees Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Robert W. Avery, the Plaintiff v. Sheriff Helder et al., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-05169-TLB-JRM (D. Ark.), the Plaintiff ask the Court for a certification of class. According to the complaint, all potential class members: 1. are subjected to or have been subjected to privacy violations of the visitation being conducted in the dayrooms; 2. have suffered from the calorie and nutrition deficiencies of the meal served at Washington County Detention Center; 3. have suffered as a result of the agreement entered into by sheriff Helder and Aramark; 4. have suffered from the kiosk protocol hampering their 1st amendment right to seek the redress of grievances; and 5. have suffered harm by and through the lack of a detox protocol and forced detoxing on a hard concrete floor and locked out of their cell. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UFWzt9qW The Plaintiff appears pro se ASSET RECOVERY: "Guthrie" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Stephen Guthrie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, and Velocity Investments, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10689 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for certification of a class of: "all persons similarly situated in the State of Alabama from whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent time-barred and/or dismissed CitiFinancial/Santander Consumer vehicle loan debt, via the same form collection letter, that Defendants sent to Plaintiff, where the date of last payment is more than 4 years from the date of the collection letter, from one year before the date of this Complaint to the present". The Plaintiff's Complaint, filed on November 16, 2016, alleges that Defendants' form debt collection letter, attempting to collect a time-barred debt, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts (FDCPA). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jwx6nM8e The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Philipps, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 South Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, Illinois 60465 Telephone: (708) 974 2900 Facsimile: (708) 974 2907 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com AUDI AG: Faces "Platt" Class Suit in North. Dist. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Audi AG and Audi of America LLC. The case is captioned Cameron Platt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Audi AG and Audi of America LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-06738-MEJ (N.D. Cal., November 22, 2016). Audi AG is an automobile manufacturer that designs, engineers, produces, markets and distributes luxury vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq. Jonathan Krasne Levine, Esq. Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 E-mail: bc@pritzkerlevine.com jkl@pritzkerlevine.com ecp@pritzkerlevine.com AVID TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Mohanty" Securities Suit in Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- PRAKASH MOHANTY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AVID TECHNOLOGY, INC., LOUIS HERNANDEZ, JR, and ILAN SIDI, Case No. 1:16-cv-12336 (D. Mass., November 21, 2016), is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Avid between August 4, 2016, and Nov. 9, 2016, inclusive seeking remedies pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Avid, based in Burlington, Massachusetts, markets digital audio and video editing software used in the film, music, recording, television, concert, and news industries. Louis Hernandez, Jr., is Avid's President, CEO, and Chairman of its Board of Directors. Ilan Sidi is Avid's Interim CFO and Vice President of Human Resources. The Plaintiff is represented by: Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP 110 Cedar Street, Suite 250 Wellesley Hills, MA 02481 Telephone: (781) 431-2231 Facsimile: (781) 431-8726 E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 600 W Broadway, Suite 1540 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0063 Facsimile: (619) 255-1856 E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com - and - Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 40 Powder Springs Street Marietta, GA 30064 Telephone: (770) 200-3104 Facsimile: (770) 200-3101 E-mail: michaelf@johnsonandweaver.com BAKER BRAVERMAN: Amesbury Seeks Certification of Classes -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled LLOYD AMESBURY, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined, the Plaintiff, v. BAKER, BRAVERMAN & BARBADORO, P.C., and MIDDLESEX SAVINGS BANK, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00598-M-PAS (D.R.I.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify these classes: Class for Count I consists of: (a) all natural persons (b) to whom BB&B sent an initial demand letter (c) which stated an amount of the debt (d) which did not include all fees and expenses claimed by the creditor (e) which letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action'; and Class for Count II consists of: (a) all natural persons (b) to whom Middlesex sent a monthly statement (c) which stated a principal amount of the debt (d) which did not include all fees and expenses claimed by the creditor (e) which statement was sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action. The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Christopher M. Lefebvre, P.C. and Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. The Defendant BB&B, on behalf of defendant Middlesex, has been attempting to collect from plaintiff a loan that was used for personal, family or household purposes, and not for business purposes. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4PcRYCPW The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq. CLAUDE F. LEFEBVRE AND CHRISTOPHER M. LEFEBVRE, P.C. P.O. Box 479 Pawtucket, RI 02862 Telephone: (401) 728 6060 Facsimile: (401) 728 6534 - and - Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 BAXTER INT'L: Faces Antitrust Suit Over IV Solutions in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- Baxter International Inc. is facing an antitrust class action lawsuit in Illinois, according to the Company's November 7, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. In November 2016 a purported antitrust class action complaint seeking monetary and injunctive relief from the company was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV solutions to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with a shortage of such solutions. BERKS, PA: Faces "Derr" Class Suit in East. District Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against The County Of Berks, Pennsylvania, Kevin Barnhardt, Christian Leinback, Mark Scott, Berks County Children And Youth Services, Krista Macilhaney, Crystal Ann Talerico, Brandon Clinton, Milissa Smith Ream Mroz, Robert Ream, Jr., Boyertown Police Department, Officer Sean Dickerson, Douglass Township Police Department, Officer Brian Yost, Chief Bary Templen, Jullie Brennan, and Kelsey Glass Berks County Children And Youth. The case is captioned Shannon Derr, Joshua Derr, Sr., JD Jr., a minor child, CD, a minor child, KC, a minor child, RC, a minor child, and CC a minor child, and other persons similarly situated v. The County Of Berks, Pennsylvania, Kevin Barnhardt, Christian Leinback, Mark Scott, Berks County Children And Youth Services, Krista Macilhaney, Crystal Ann Talerico, Brandon Clinton, Milissa Smith Ream Mroz, Robert Ream, Jr., Boyertown Police Department, Officer Sean Dickerson, Douglass Township Police Department, Officer Brian Yost, Chief Bary Templen, Jullie Brennan, and Kelsey Glass Berks County Children And Youth, Case No. 5:16-cv-06142-JLS (E.D. Penn., November 23, 2016). The County of Berks is a county located in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. Shannon Derr, Joshua Derr, Sr., JD, Jr., CD, KC, RC, and CC are pro se plaintiffs. BF LABS: "Alexander" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned KYLE ALEXANDER, and DYLAN SYMINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BF LABS INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-02159-KHV (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant amended motion for class certification: Alexander Count I -- KCPA: "all persons who (1) pre-paid BFL for ASIC 65 NM generation products or ASIC 28 NM generation products between September 3, 2012 and July 17, 2014, and (2) as of November 18, 2016, have not received the product(s) ordered and have not received a refund"; Alexander Count II -- Unjust Enrichment: "all persons who (1) pre-paid BFL for ASIC 65 NM generation products or ASIC 28 NM generation products between September 3, 2012 and July 17, 2014, and (2) as of November 18, 2016, have not received the product(s) ordered and have not received a refund"; Alexander Count III -- Conversion: "all persons who (1) pre-paid BFL for ASIC 65 NM generation products or ASIC 28 NM generation products between September 3, 2012 and July 17, 2014, (2) demanded or requested a refund, and (3) as of November 18, 2016, have not received the product(s) ordered and have not received a refund"; Symington Count I -- KCPA: "all persons who (1) pre-paid BFL for ASIC 65 NM generation products or ASIC 28 NM generation products between September 3, 2012 and July 17, 2014, and (2) as of November 18, 2016, have received the product(s) ordered and have not received a refund"; Symington Count II -- Unjust Enrichment: "all persons who (1) pre-paid BFL for ASIC 65 NM generation products or ASIC 28 NM generation products between September 3, 2012 and July 17, 2014, and (2) as of November 18, 2016, have received the product(s) ordered and have not received a refund"; and Symington Count III -- Conversion: "all persons who (1) pre-paid BFL for ASIC 65 NM generation products or ASIC 28 NM generation products between September 3, 2012 and July 17, 2014, and (2) as of November 18, 2016, have received the product(s) ordered and have not received a refund". Excluded from each class shall be BF Labs Inc. and any shareholder, director, officer, or employee of BF Labs Inc.; the Court and Court personnel; counsel of record for BF Labs Inc.; and counsel of record for the Named Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs; and any customers who previously settled with Defendants. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to: (a) appoint Plaintiffs Kyle Alexander and Dylan Symington as class representatives; and (b) appoint Plaintiff's counsel Noah K. Wood and Ari N. Rodopoulos of the Wood Law Firm, LLC as lead class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8JvEGjQ5 The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah K. Wood, Esq. Ari N. Rodopoulos, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 1800 Kansas City, MO 64105-5171 Telephone: (816) 256 3582 Facsimile: (816) 337 4243 E-mail: noah@woodlaw.com ari@woodlaw.com BF WASTE: "Macias" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER MACIAS and JOY HOAR, individuals, Plaintiffs, vs. BF WASTE SERVICES OF TEXAS, LP, REPUBLIC SERVICES ALLIANCE GROUP, INC., a Texas Corporation, and REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., d/b/a REPUBLIC WASTE SERVICES GROUP OF TEXAS, Inc, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00245-J (N.D. Tex., November 10, 2016), is a representative action for alleged unpaid wages and overtime brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. BF WASTE SERVICES OF TEXAS, LP is engaged in the business of hauling waste and refuse which necessarily includes the trucking business or services for commerce in the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip R. Russ, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP R. RUSS 2700 S. Western, Suite 1200 Amarillo, TX 79109 Phone: (806) 358-9293 Fax: (806) 358-9296 BLATT & HASENMILLER: "Lillegard" Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled JANE BISHOP LILLEGARD, Individually and on behalf of a class, the Plaintiff, v. BLATT, HASENMILLER, LEIBSKER & MOORE, LLC and UNIFUND CCR, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16- cv-08075 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a class of: "(a) all individuals (b) with addresses in Illinois, (c) to whom Defendant Blatt mailed a "Notice of Debt" stating that "Unifund CCR Partners" is the "Current [sic] Creditor" (d) where "Unifund CCR, LLC" is the current creditor (e) which letter was sent during the period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 21 days after the filing of this action". The Plaintiff's class action complaint, filed on August 15, 2016, alleges that Defendant, via its client Unifund, mailed a letter to Plaintiff that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts (FDCPA) by falsely stating that Unifund CCR Partners is the current creditor, and by failing to provide a Notice of Debt that states the name of the actual creditor to which the debt is owed. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3YRzVraS The Plaintiff is represented by: Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312 726 6160 Facsimile: 312 698 5054 E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com BLUESTEM BRANDS: "Norris" Suit Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ TINA NORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLUESTEM BRANDS, INC., BLAIR, LLC., and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-03954 (D. Minn, Nov. 18, 2016), seeks an order from the Court enjoining Defendant Bluestem and Defendant Blair from their continued violation of the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (MFLSA). The suit seeks an award of civil penalties. The Defendants allegedly failed to compensate their employees for post-shift compensable time in any amount. The Defendants knew or should have known that, under the FLSA, Plaintiff should have been paid overtime "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate" at which she was employed for all compensable pre- shift time for workweeks in excess of 40 hours. Despite this, the Defendants failed to pay overtime at one and one-half times the regular rate for Plaintiff's pre-shift compensable time. Bluestem Brands, headquartered in suburban Minneapolis, is the parent to three fast-growing multichannel retail brands. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. David H. Grounds, Esq. Molly E. Nephew, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436 1800 Facsimile: (612) 436 1801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com mnephew@johnsonbecker.com BUFFALO TRACE: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Bottle Labeling --------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS PARKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BUFFALO TRACE DISTILLERY, INC., OLD CHARTER DISTILLERY CO., and SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08986 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to enjoin the unlawful acts and practices of Defendants' bottle labeling that misleads consumers to believe that their bourbon is aged 8 years. According to the complaint, the Defendants represent that Old Charter is an 8-year aged bourbon. That is false and misleading. Old Charter used to be aged for 8 years, but Defendants stopped that practice in approximately January 2014. The bourbon bearing the Old Charter name is now aged for significantly less than 8 years and is of inferior quality to its former self. But in an attempt to upsell the newer, younger, and inferior product, Defendants' bottle labeling still misleads consumers to believe that the bourbon is aged 8 years. The misrepresentation appears in three places on the bottle: on the neck, on its own label on the top of the body, and in the text portion which reads "gently matured for eight seasons in century old brick warehouses". Buffalo Trace Distillery is a distillery located in Frankfort, Kentucky. It has historically been known by several names, including most notably, the George T. Stagg Distillery and the O.F.C. Distillery. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837 7150 Facsimile: (212) 989 9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com ykopel@bursor.com C BASTOS: Sandoval Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE SANDOVAL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. C. BASTOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. (d/b/a CARLOS BASTOS CONSTRUCTION) and CARLOS BASTOS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09020 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff Sandoval regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage or overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked each week. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Sandoval appropriately for any hours worked. The Defendants own, operate, and/or control a construction company located at 114 Primrose Avenue, Mt. Vernon, New York 10550 under the name "Carlos Bastos Construction". The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 Facsimile: (212) 317 1620 CALIFORNIA: Classes Certified in "Amador" Strip-Search Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled MARY AMADOR, ET AL., the Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF LEROY D. BACA, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:10-cv- 01649-SVW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Stephen V. Wilson entered an order granting Plaintiff's renewed motion for certification under Rule 23(C)(4) and certifying Class No. 1 and Class No. 2, with subclasses. Class No. 1 - Simultaneous Search Class, March, 2008--July, 2011: The events common to this class are that two lines of women were searched in Bus Bay No. 3, against opposite walls, and directed to face each other. The groups ranged upwards of 60 women. They were told to undress and a guard would search their exposed top half, including underneath breasts, armpits, and rolls of fat. During this time, the female on the opposite wall was facing forward, viewing the search occurring. Similarly, each female had to watch while this search was done to the person across from them and be exposed to that female's private body parts. There was also nothing preventing the women from viewing searches to their left and right. After the search of the upper part of the body, the visual body cavity ("vbc") inspection occurred. In this inspection, the women were instructed to remove their underwear, turn around, bend at the waist, and look through their legs during this search. The women were ordered to manually spread their labia to expose their vaginal opening. Both lines did this at the same time, so that the women would view the female across from them in the same position, with their genitals exposed. When the women undressed, the clothes were placed directly on the ground. The women were barefoot on a porous, concrete slab"; 1. Weather Subclass This subclass will include women in class No. 1 who were also subjected to temperatures of 77 degrees or lower. 2. Menstruation Subclass: This subclass will include women in class No. 1 who were menstruating at the time the search occurred. There were additional policies targeted towards menstruating women: in front of the group they would be ordered to (1) self-identify that they were currently menstruating, (2) remove their tampon or sanitary pad, and (3) insert a new one. Class no. 2 - One-Line-At-A-Time Search Class, July, 2011 -- January 1, 2015: The events common to this class are that two lines of women were searched in Bus Bay No. 3, against opposite walls, and directed to face the wall. The group size was limited to 24 women at a time (except for the subclass, noted below). Then, one line at a time would face forward and undress. Opposite them would be a female facing the wall so that no female would directly view the female across from them -- except their backside. There was nothing preventing the women from viewing searches to their left and right. The search itself was essentially the same (checking underneath breasts, armpits, and rolls of fat). The vbc inspection was also one line at a time and otherwise essentially the same (women were told to face the wall, bend at the waist, manually spread their labia, and look between their legs). During the vbc inspection the women would not be viewing the female across from them in the same position, rather the female across from them would be facing the wall. The women placed their clothes on tables (except for the subclass, noted below). They were barefoot on a porous, concrete slab. 1. Clothes and Group Size Subclass Women in class No 2 who were searched between July 2011 -- March 2013 had the following common conditions between them: (1) searched in groups upwards of 60, and (2) clothes were put directly on the floor. 2. Weather Subclass This subclass will include women in class No. 2 who were also subjected to temperatures of 77 degrees or lower. 3. Menstruation Subclass This subclass will include women in class #2 who were menstruating at the time the search occurred. There were additional policies targeted towards menstruating women: in front of the group they would be ordered to (1) self-identify that they were currently menstruating, (2) remove their tampon or sanitary pad, and (3) insert a new one. The Court further granted Plaintiffs 14 days to amend the pleadings in order to cure the defect of having no named Plaintiff to represent Class no. 2. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gYQgpU0r CALLSMART INC: Dolemba Class Cert. Bid Continued to Jan. 26 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Scott Dolemba, the Plaintiff, v. CallSmart, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04863 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Jorge L. Alonso entered an order continuing Plaintiff's motion for class certification to January 26, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., according to the docket entry made by the Clerk on November 17, 2016. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M4sBEENZ CARSON SMITHFIELD: Class Certification Sought in "Sievert" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled GORDON SIEVERT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CARSON SMITHFIELD, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01547-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff moves the court to certify a class and to stay the motion for class certification, and to grant Plaintiff (and Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the motion. The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint the Plaintiff as its representative, and appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations omitted), and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice. Unfortunately, they have not. In dicta, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification motion. As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4WUGyXsp The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 (fax) E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com CATALINA RESTAURANT: Class Cert. Sought in Warn Act Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit re: Catalina Restaurant Group Warn Act Litigation, Case No. 2:15-cv-2626-DDP-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court at a hearing on January 23, 2017, for: (a) certification of a Nationwide Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure consisting of: "all of Defendants' employees who, on or within 90 days of April 1, 2015, were terminated without cause from employment at Defendants' place of business at 2200 Faraday Ave. No. 250, Carlsbad, CA 92008, a Coco's Bakery, or a Carrows Restaurant as part of a mass layoff or plant closing without being provided 60 days' written notice; (b) certification of a California Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure consisting of: "all of Defendants' employees in California who, on or within 90 days of April 1, 2015, were terminated without cause from employment at Defendants' place of business at 2200 Faraday Ave. No. 250, Carlsbad, CA 92008, a Coco's Bakery, or a Carrows Restaurant as part of a mass layoff or plant closing without being provided 60 days' written notice; (c) appointment of Plaintiffs Phoebe Patterson, Kanani Fast, Rebekkah Salazar, Ashley Watts, Aisha Rogers, Aaron Kakavand, Tracy Salazar, Victoria Andrade, Gerardo Chavez, Joelle Kennedy, Christi Harrell, Gene Watts, John Manley, Roseann Barnett, Gary Bowles, Maria Ramirez, Violeta Ramirez, Andrew Hodge, and Jose Sandoval as the Class Representatives for the Nationwide Class; (d) appointment of Plaintiffs Kanani Fast, Rebekkah Salazar, Ashley Watts, Aisha Rogers, Aaron Kakavand, Tracy Salazar, Victoria Andrade, Gerardo Chavez, Joelle Kennedy, Christi Harrell, Gene Watts, John Manley, Roseann Barnett, Gary Bowles, Maria Ramirez, Violeta Ramirez, Andrew Hodge, and Jose Sandoval as the Class Representatives for the California Class; (e) appointment of Girard Gibbs LLP as lead class counsel and the Desai Law Firm, P.C. as well as Capstone Law, APC as co-class counsel; and (f) such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lvJv8URm The Plaintiff is represented by: AJ de Bartolomeo, Esq. Linda Lam, Esq. Michael Schrag, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ajd@classlawgroup.com mls@classlawgroup.com lpl@classlawgroup.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Pressman Seeks Class Certification Under TCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled PRESSMAN, INC. d/b/a PILL BOX PHARMACY & MEDICAL SUPPLY, a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE ENGAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, AMARIN PHARMA, INC., BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION, SEBELA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., PSKW, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-12, Case No. 0:16-cv-62472-WJZ (S.D. Fla.), moves for an order certifying this class: Each person that was sent one or more telephone facsimile messages (faxes) promoting an "MFG Co-Pay Card," identifying "BIN: 004682," and indicating that fax opt-out requests could be submitted by fax to 888-261-0360 or by live call to 888-261-0361. Pressman Inc. informs the Court that it filed the Motion soon after the filing of its first amended class action complaint in order to avoid an attempt by the Defendants to moot its individual claims in the class action. The Plaintiff anticipates discovering information or things during the litigation that it will offer in support of class certification and, therefore, will seek leave to initiate discovery as soon as practicable. The case involves common fact questions about the Defendants' alleged fax campaign and common legal questions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hV0hsfA0 The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC P.O. Box 416474 134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5501 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com CHAPEI LLC: Court Refuses to Conditionally Certify "Wang" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Michael A. Shipp denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify the putative collective action entitled WEIGANG WANG, et al. v. CHAPEI LLC d/b/a WOK EMPIRE, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02950-MAS-DEA (D.N.J.). Based on the Court's review of Plaintiffs' submissions, the Court finds that Plaintiffs applied the incorrect standard for collective action certification, Judge Shipp opined. Judge Shipp explains that although the "modest factual showing" standard is appropriate at the "notice stage" of litigation when little or no discovery has taken place, a stricter standard is more appropriate when plaintiffs move for conditional certification near or after the close of discovery. "Here, the parties were near the close of discovery when Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, and discovery has since closed with the exception of Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Reconsideration," Judge Shipp points out. Judge Shipp rules that the Plaintiffs may file a Motion to Certify Collective Action, applying the applicable "stricter standard" as set forth in Zavala, 691 F.3d at 536-3 7. If Judge Douglas E. Arpert denies Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, the Plaintiffs must file their Motion to Certify Collective Action within 30 days of Judge Arpert's Order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, Judge Shipp states. If Judge Arpert grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and orders further discovery, the Plaintiffs must file their Motion to Certify Collective Action within 30 days of the close of discovery as set forth by Judge Arpert. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7j0Z1z6Z CHARTER TOWNSHIP: Court Denied Class Cert. Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled GARNER PROPERTIES & MANAGEMENT, the Plaintiff, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF REDFORD, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-14100-MAG-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith entered an order denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for class certification filed on August 12, 2016. The Court said, "In this case, Plaintiff and Defendant raise several novel issues that make certification impracticable at this time. For instance, at argument, regarding the "typicality" and "commonality" prerequisites to class certification, the parties disagreed whether a property manager must show that, but for the alleged due process violation, he would nevertheless have been cited for an ordinance violation. And, if it is assumed that the citation would have issued in any case, it is disputed whether a putative class member would have to show that he would have appealed and/or succeeded in that appeal. Further, it is not altogether clear what monetary relief Plaintiff requests (i.e., a refund of fines paid, versus a reimbursement of fines plus repair costs). Regarding Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim, it is disputed whether the possibility of an individual putative class member's consent defeats typicality. Finally, at the hearing, the Defendant raised the possibility that Plaintiff cannot serve as a class representative because it lacks standing, having suffered no actual injury due to a contractual entitlement to reimbursement. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the unanswered questions surrounding the nature of Plaintiff's claims or Defendant's responses to them. Resolving these and other merits claims likely will inform whether Plaintiff satisfies the prerequisites for class certification. And, where these merits claims do not directly implicate the certification decision (such as Defendant's argument that its inspection scheme facially complies with the Fourth Amendment, notwithstanding affirmative consent), they nevertheless tend to apply to all putative class members equally, potentially winnowing the putative class and reducing notice and litigation costs. The Court determines that dispositive motions are necessary -- both to narrow the issues and bring much-needed clarity to those that remain". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=i4W5QDNq COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Suits in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation is facing two purported securities class action lawsuits in the New Jersey District Court and another lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, according to the Company's November 7, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. On October 5, 2016, and October 27, 2016, two purported securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false or misleading statements related to potential violations of the FCPA, the Company's business, prospects, and operations and the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting and its disclosure controls and procedures. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and an award of the costs and attorneys' and experts' fees of the plaintiff and a purported class of stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock during the period between February 25, 2016 and September 30, 2016. On October 31, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the Bergen County Superior Court - Law Division, New Jersey, naming the Company, all of its directors and certain of its current and former executive officers as defendants. The Company has not yet been served with the complaint. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation provides information technology (IT), consulting, and business process services worldwide. COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Stathakos, et al. Seek Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JEANNE and NICOLAS STATHAKOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY; COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR USA CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-04543-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court at a hearing on March 28, 2017, for an order certifying a Plaintiff class consisting of: "all consumers who purchased an Outlet SMU Build garment at a Columbia Outlet store in the State of California since July 1, 2014, through the conclusion of this action". Defendants Columbia Sportswear Company and Columbia Sportswear USA Corp. allegedly engage in a uniform, materially misleading advertising practice that affects each and every consumer shopping at their Columbia Outlet stores in California. Columbia affixes price tags to products it designs and manufactures for exclusive sale at its outlet stores that mislead consumers into believing those products have been marked down from a higher, former price. In fact, none of those products ever sold anywhere at the higher price on their price tags. Columbia's misleading advertising is identical across the nearly 600 outlet exclusive products covered by Plaintiffs' proposed class definition. Every member of the Proposed Class has been exposed to the same materially misleading price representations, and has suffered the same injury as a result. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pwAVdwwi The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristen Law Sagafi, Esq. Martin D. Quinones, Esq. Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 483 Ninth Street, Suite 200 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone (510) 254 6808 Facsimile (510) 210 0571 E-mail: ksagafi@tzlegal.com mquinones@tzlegal.com hzavareei@tzlegal.com jkaliel@tzlegal.com - and - Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq. Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525 4100 Facsimile: (954) 525 4300 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com edelsberg@kolawyers.com COLUMBINE MANAGEMENT: "Null" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY NULL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals and on behalf of the Proposed Rule 23 Class, the Plaintiff, v. COLUMBINE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. AND GREENFIELD MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02826 (D. Col., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to recover damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Colorado Wage Act (CWA), and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order Number 31 (the CMWO). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was regularly required to work a substantial amount of time off-the-clock as part of her job. Defendants suffered or permitted Plaintiff and other similarly situated former and/or current employees' to routinely perform off-the-clock work by automatically deducting 30 minutes for a meal break from each shift worked of 8 hours or more, while still requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals to continue to work on the nursing floor and care for the patients while being clocked out. The Plaintiff was never compensated for this time. Columbine Management was founded in 2000. The company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract or fee basis. The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Grounds, Esq. Molly E. Nephew, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436 1800 Facsimile: (612) 436 1801 E-mail: mnephew@johnsonbecker.com dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com COOK COUNTY, IL: "Rogers" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Keith Rogers, the Plaintiff, v. Sheriff of Cook County and Cook County, Illinois, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-11632 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to order that this case may proceed as a class action for: "all persons who entered the Cook County Jail on and after December 23, 2013 who were lawfully taking an opioid antagonist, as defined in 42 C.F.R. 8.12(h)(2), who were not then on parole or held on a warrant from another jurisdiction, and who were not pregnant". According to the complaint, tapering methadone results in painful withdrawal symptoms, including "anxiety, chills, muscle pain (myalgia) and weakness, tremor, lethargy and drowsiness, restlessness and irritability, nausea and vomiting and diarrhoea." Amato, Davoli, Minozzi, Ferroni, Ali, and Ferri, Methadone at Tapered Doses for the Management of Opioid Withdrawal, COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, Issue 2, Art No. CD003409 at 2 (2013). Plaintiff suffered many of these symptoms until he resumed his regular methadone dosage when he left the Jail when the withdrawal symptoms began to gradually subside. Plaintiff raises two claims in this lawsuit. The first is about the delay in receiving methadone. This claim is at issue for a class in Parish v. Sheriff, N.D. Ill., No. 07-cv-4369. The second claim focuses on the tapering policy, which is not part of Parish. The overwhelming majority of persons subjected to the tapering policy are, like plaintiff, released from custody before completing the regimen. This is not surprising because research sponsored by the Sheriff in 2011 showed that half of all detainees are at the Jail for 12 or fewer days. Cook County Sheriff's Reentry Council Research Bulletin, March 2011 at 4. Even if completed, tapering leaves those released from the jail at risk of relapse "because of the physical and emotional stress of attempting to discontinue medication." Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Addiction in Opioid Treatment Programs 117 (2005). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UFWzt9qW The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth N. Flaxman, Esq. Joel A. Flaxman, Esq. 200 S Michigan Ave, Ste 201 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 427 3200 CONSTAR FINANCIAL: Hernandez Moves for Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------- Enid Hernandez moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled ENID HERNANDEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CONSTAR FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-01525 (E.D. Wisc.), and further requests that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence, the Plaintiff states. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class. The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice. Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes. In dicta, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification motion. Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount."). As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=goRia6OW The Plaintiff is represented by: 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: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com CONTROL4 CORPORATION: "Panusis" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled LADYBETH PANUSIS, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONTROL4 CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-CV-01179-DOC-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order granting class certification at a hearing on December 19, 2016. The Plaintiff defined class as: "all Control4 employees who signed the Non-Compete Agreement and/or a similar agreement restraining their ability to pursue a business, profession or trade pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)". The Plaintiff further asks the Court to: (1) appoint Plaintiff Ladybeth Panusis as the class representative; (2) appoint Shanberg, Stafford & Bartz LLP as the attorneys for the class; and (3) order all other relief to allow this case to proceed as a class action. The Defendant is a publicly traded corporation that markets and sells home automation services. Control4, as a matter of policy and practice, requires its California-based employees, as a condition of their employment, to sign an agreement entitled Confidential Information, Nonsolicitation, Noncompetition, and Invention Assignment Agreement (Non-Compete Agreement) that unlawfully restrains them from pursuing their profession, trade or business under California Business and Professions Code. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sojozE0C The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross E. Shanberg, Esq. Shane C. Stafford, Esq. Aaron A. Bartz, Esq. SHANBERG, STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP The Atrium, 19200 Von Karman Ave No 400 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: 1 949 622 5444 COSTAMAR EXPRESS: Faces "Solis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------- Ignacio Solis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Costamar Express Cargo & Shipping, Inc. and Maria Victoria Arcos, Case No. 1:16-cv-06521 (E.D.N.Y., November 22, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a shipping company in Corona, New York. Ignacio Solis is a pro se plaintiff. CRESCENT CONSULTING: Faces "Whitlow" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tommy Whitlow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crescent Consulting, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-01330-R (W.D. Ok., November 21, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Crescent Consulting, LLC is an oil and gas services company operating throughout the United States, including in Texas and Oklahoma. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. James Jones, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com PALM BEACH, FL: Boyce Trans Seeks Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned BOYCE TRANS, INC., a Florida corporation d/b/a A1A AIRPORT and LIMOUSINE SERVICE, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, the Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-81242-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of: "all vehicle for hire companies that, from March 9, 2105, through April 19, 2016, were licensed to operate in Palm Beach County, Florida and were subject to the requirements of the Code, excluding companies that met the definition of "taxicab" under the 2008 ordinance". Excluded from the Class are (1) PBC and its employees, officers, directors, legal representatives, successors or wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliates; (2) the named plaintiffs in VTS Transportation, et al vs. Palm Beach County, Case No: 15-CV-80560- ROSENBERG; (3) class counsel and their employees; and (4) the judicial officers, their immediate family members, and court staff assigned to this case. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class asserting a claim for violation of the right to equal protection arising out of Palm Beach County's decision to give to Rasier, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company and subsidiary of Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber), a temporary operating agreement that relieved Uber of the obligation to comply with various elements of the Palm Beach County vehicle for hire (VFH) ordinance. Chapter 19, Article IX of the Palm Beach County Code and Ordinances sets forth various requirements with which all vehicles for hire must comply in order to provide VFH services within Palm Beach County. Each of the Plaintiffs and the putative class members complied with the obligations of the VFH ordinance during the term of the TOA, while Uber was exempted. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SkEm3UEH The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas F. Eaton, Esq. EATON & WOLK, PL One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 249 1640 Facsimile: (786) 350 3079 E-mail: deaton@eatonwolk.com - and - Robert T. Slatoff, Esq. Constantina Alexandrou Mirabile, Esq. FRANK, WEINBERG & BLACK, P.L. Lynn Financial Center 1875 NW Corporate Blvd., Suite 100 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 989 0700 Facsimile: (954) 474 9850 E-mail: rslatoff@fwblaw.net camirabile@fwblaw.net awallain@fwblaw.net DILLON LAW: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------ Tamera Shearon-Myers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Dillon Law Firm, P.C., Case No. 1:16-cv- 04346-CAP-JFK (N.D. Ga., November 22, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Dillon Law Firm, P.C. operates a law firm located at 1130 Hurricane Shoals Rd NE #600, Lawrenceville, GA 30043. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marques J. Carter, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARQUES J. CARTER Suite 100, 3400 Chapel Hill Road Douglasville, GA 30135 Telephone: (888) 595-9111 Facsimile: (866) 842-3303 E-mail: mjclawllc@comcast.net DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid Continued to Jan. 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Rachel Gingerich, the Plaintiff, v. Discover Financial Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-10226 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman entered an order continuing Plaintiff's motion to certify a class to January 6, 2017 at 09:00 AM. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on November 21, 2016, status hearing set for November 28, 2016 is stricken and reset to January 6, 2017 at 09:00 AM. The applications by Shannon E. Dudic and Geoffrey L. Warner for leave to appear pro hac vice are granted. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qxOheCtX DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Palmer" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled RAY PALMER, JR., on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company, and CASCADE CAPITAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-00059-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff and Defendants ask the Court an order certifying the case to proceed as a class action and to grant preliminary approval of the parties' settlement agreement. The settlement class is defined as: "(i) all persons with addresses in Florida; (ii) to whom Defendant Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC sent, or caused to be sent, a letter in the form of Exhibit A attached to the Complaint on behalf of Cascade Capital LLC; (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt originally due Bank of America; (iv) which, as shown by the nature of the alleged debt, Defendants' records, or the records of the original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; (v) on which the last payment was made five or more years prior to the date of mailing of the letter; and (vi) during the year prior to the filing". Counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendants have reviewed and analyzed the legal and factual issues presented in this action, the risks and exposure involved in pursing the litigation to conclusion, the likelihood of recovering damages in excess of those obtained through this settlement, the protracted nature of the litigation and the likely costs and possible outcomes of one or more procedural and substantive appeals. Based upon their review and analysis, and after arm's-length negotiations, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into the Agreement. The parties further ask the Court to: 1. appoint Plaintiff Ray Palmer, Jr. as Class Representative; 2. appoint Donald E. Petersen and O. Randolph Bragg as Class Counsel; 3. directs the mailing of the Class Notice subject to any medication deemed necessary by the Court; and 4. set dates for opt-outs and objections, and schedules a hearing for final approval. The parties have agreed to these settlement terms: a. Defendant Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, on behalf of itself and Defendant Cascade Capital, LLC, shall pay a total of $24,000.00 to the class for statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1692k(a)(2)(B) to be distributed on a pro rata basis to each class member who does not timely opt out or exclude himself or herself from the class settlement (Class Settlement Fund); b. Defendant Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, on behalf of itself and Defendant Cascade Capital, LLC, shall pay Plaintiff a total of $500.00 in recognition for his service as Class Representative, and Defendant Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, on behalf of itself and Defendant Cascade Capital, LLC, shall pay an additional total of $500.00 to Plaintiff as his statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1692k (this is in addition to and will not reduce or otherwise affect the $24,000.00 Class Settlement Fund); c. Plaintiff shall be deemed the prevailing and successful party solely for purposes of an award of costs and attorney fees. Defendant Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, on behalf of itself and Defendant Cascade Capital, LLC, shall pay Plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as determined or approved by the Court pursuant to Rule 23(h) if the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs cannot first be agreed upon by the Parties (this is in addition to and will not reduce or otherwise affect the $24,000.00 Class Settlement Fund); and d. Defendant Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, on behalf of itself and Defendant Cascade Capital, LLC, shall pay the reasonable costs of class notice, distribution, and administration directly to the class administrator in advance of the services necessitating any such costs (this is in addition to and will not reduce or otherwise affect the $24,000.00 Class Settlement Fund). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dzOjYqNv The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald E. Petersen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DONALD E. PETERSEN Post Office Box 1948 Orlando, FL 32802-1948 Telephone:: 407 648 9050 E-mail: petersen221@yahoo.com - and - O. Randolph Bragg, Esq. HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOC. 25 East Washington Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372 8822 E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Ernest H. Kohlmyer, III, Esq. ERNEST H. KOHLMYER, III, ESQ. LLM URBAN, THEIR, FEDERER & CHINNERY, P.A. 200 South Orange Avenue; Suite 20000 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 245 8352 Facsimile: (407) 245 8361 E-mail: Kohlmyer@urbanthier.com - and - Brian D. Rubenstein, Esq. BRIAN RUBENSTEIN, ESQ COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. 4301 West Boy Scout Boulevard; Suit 400 Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: (813) 864 9319 Facsimile: (813) 286 2900 E-mail: Brian.Rubenstein@ckslegal.com DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Feb. 3 Hearing on Securities Accord ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dynavax Technologies Corporation is awaiting final approval of its agreement to settle a consolidated securities litigation, which is currently set to be heard on February 3, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. On June 18, 2013, the first of two substantially similar securities class action complaints was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its former executive officers. The second was filed on June 26, 2013. On August 22, 2013, these two complaints and all related actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred to, the District Court were consolidated into a single case entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation. On September 27, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 12, 2013, lead plaintiff filed his consolidated class action complaint (the "consolidated complaint"), which named a former director of the Company as a defendant in addition to the Company and the former executive officers identified in the two prior complaints (collectively, the "defendants"). The consolidated complaint alleged that between April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company and certain of its executive officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with statements related to the Company's product, HEPLISAV-B, an investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine. The consolidated complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On January 10, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On March 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The opposition introduced a new theory of the case, so defendants permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint. On April 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint ("ACC"). The ACC added a new plaintiff and several new defendants, and alleged that, between April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, and entities related to certain of its directors, violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with statements related to the Company's product candidate, HEPLISAV-B. Specifically, the ACC alleged that the Company made fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions regarding the manufacture of HEPLISAV-B and that certain insiders unlawfully profited from such misrepresentations or omissions. The ACC sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On June 6, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the ACC. On August 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Opposition to that motion. On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint ("SAC") to remove or correct erroneous statements attributed to confidential witnesses. The SAC retains all allegations asserted in the ACC. On October 10, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On November 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss the SAC. The Company filed its reply in support of the motion on December 1, 2014. A hearing on the motion to dismiss the SAC occurred on Feb. 20, 2015. The Court granted the motion with respect to some of the alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by the Company or certain named defendants as well as some of the insider trading claims against certain insiders and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to other alleged misrepresentations and omissions and insider trading claims. The Company filed an answer to the SAC on April 6, 2015. On September 7, 2016, the parties signed the Stipulation of Settlement, which provides for a payment of $4.5 million by the defendants, of which Dynavax is responsible for $4.1 million, and will result in a dismissal and release of all claims against the defendants in connection with the securities class action, upon final court approval. The settlement will be paid for by the Company's insurance carriers. On October 17, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and set a hearing for final approval for February 3, 2017. DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Shumake" Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SHUMAKE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, EDDIE GRAY, and MICHAEL S. OSTRACH, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-06707-JSW (N.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants violations of federal securities laws and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). According to the complaint, on November 14, 2016, the Company issued a press release, announcing that Dynavax received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA on the Company's Revised BLA for HEPLISAV-B (TM). The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) there were significant adverse events associated with Dynavax's HEPLISAV-B product, including an imbalance in the number of cardiac events during use; (ii) consequently, a commercial product launch of HEPLISAV-B was less imminent than Dynavax had led investors to believe; and (iii) as a result, Dynavax's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As the truth about HEPLISAV-B (TM) and the Company's ability to commercialize it was revealed through the issuance of the Company's November 14, 2016 press release, the Company's stock price declined from a closing price of $11.60 per share on November 11, 2016, to close at $4.10 per share on November 14, 2016, a drop of $7.50 per share, or approximately 64%. The Defendants intentionally and/or recklessly misrepresented the true state of Dynavax's HEPLISAV-B (TM) vaccine's safety profile and potential for commercialization. Unbeknownst to investors, Defendants' statements were materially false and/or inaccurate and had the effect of artificially inflating the Company's stock price. When the fraud was revealed, Dynavax's stock price dropped precipitously. Plaintiff and all other members of the Class were damaged as a result thereof. Dynavax is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that uses biology to discover and develop novel vaccines and therapeutics. Dynavax's development programs are focused on vaccines and cancer immunotherapy. The Company's leading product candidate is HEPLISAV-B (TM). HEPLISAV-B (TM) is a two-dose hepatitis B vaccine. If HEPLISAV-B (TM) is approved and commercialized, it will compete against the conventional three-dose hepatitis B vaccines. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq. Kolin C. Tang, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 429 5272 Facsimile: (866) 300 7367 E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com ktang@sfmslaw.com DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Soontjens" Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SOONTJENS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, EDDIE GRAY, and MICHAEL S. OSTRACH, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-06690 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants violations of federal securities laws and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). According to the complaint, on November 14, 2016, the Company issued a press release, announcing that Dynavax received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA on the Company's Revised BLA for HEPLISAV-B (TM). The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) there were significant adverse events associated with Dynavax's HEPLISAV-B product, including an imbalance in the number of cardiac events during use; (ii) consequently, a commercial product launch of HEPLISAV-B was less imminent than Dynavax had led investors to believe; and (iii) as a result, Dynavax's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As the truth about HEPLISAV-B (TM) and the Company's ability to commercialize it was revealed through the issuance of the Company's November 14, 2016 press release, the Company's stock price declined from a closing price of $11.60 per share on November 11, 2016, to close at $4.10 per share on November 14, 2016, a drop of $7.50 per share, or approximately 64%. The Defendants intentionally and/or recklessly misrepresented the true state of Dynavax's HEPLISAV-B (TM) vaccine's safety profile and potential for commercialization. Unbeknownst to investors, Defendants' statements were materially false and/or inaccurate and had the effect of artificially inflating the Company's stock price. When the fraud was revealed, Dynavax's stock price dropped precipitously. Plaintiff and all other members of the Class were damaged as a result thereof. Dynavax is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that uses biology to discover and develop novel vaccines and therapeutics. Dynavax's development programs are focused on vaccines and cancer immunotherapy. The Company's leading product candidate is HEPLISAV-B (TM). HEPLISAV-B (TM) is a two-dose hepatitis B vaccine. If HEPLISAV-B (TM) is approved and commercialized; it will compete against the conventional three-dose hepatitis B vaccines. 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 E-COMMERCE CHINA: Fasano et al. File Securities Suit Over Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Fasano; Altimeo Optimum Fund; Altimeo Asset Management; Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Guoqing Li; Peggy Yu Yu; Dangdang Holding Company, Ltd.; E-Commerce China Dangdang Inc.; Kewen Holding Co. Ltd.; Science & Culture Ltd.; First Profit Management, Ltd.; Danqian Yao; Lijun Chen; Min Kan; Ruby Rong Lu; Ke Zhang; and Xiaolong Li, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08759 (S.D.N.Y., November 10, 2016), is a securities suit over E-Commerce China Dangdang, Inc.'s going- private transaction. Plaintiffs seek damages as a result of Dangdang's board of directors agreeing to sell Dangdang to a buyers' group that held 83.6% voting power and included controlling stockholder and Chief Executive Officer, Guoqing Li and his wife, Chairwoman Peggy Yu Yu on allegedly grossly unfair terms that (i) improperly favored Li's group over another all-cash offer and (ii) badly underpaid the Company's minority shareholders. E-Commerce China Dangdang Inc. is a business-to-consumer e- commerce company in China. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel J. Lieberman, Esq. Douglas R. Hirsch, Esq. Ben Hutman, Esq. SADIS & GOLDBERG LLP 551 Fifth Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10176 Phone: (212) 573-8164 ELECTRICITY MAINE: Sued Over Electricity Cost Savings Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ KATHERINE VEILLEUX, and JENNIFER CHON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs v. ELECTRICITY MAINE, LLC, PROVIDER POWER, LLC, SPARK HOLDCO, LLC, KEVIN DEAN, and EMILE CLAVET, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00571-NT (D. Maine, Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to remedy the significant financial harm caused by Defendant' electricity cost savings scheme. According to the complaint, between 2011 and 2014, The Defendant Electricity Maine, LLC, enrolled nearly 200,000 Maine households and small businesses in its electricity-supply services with the promise of substantial cost savings. Instead of decreasing consumers' electricity bills, however, Electricity Maine, through Defendants' fraud and deception, cost Maine ratepayers at least $35 million. The combination of fraudulent and misleading marketing and promotion, and artificially low promotional rates, allowed Electricity Maine to rapidly gain significant market share in the Maine residential and small-business electricity supply market. These marketing practices were so effective that, in 2012, Electricity Maine became the fastest growing energy company in the country. Electricity Maine's promise of always beating the standard offer proved short lived, however. After enrolling nearly 190,000 customers through mid-2012, Electricity Maine began to significantly increase its rates in early 2013. When customers' introductory-rates expired, they were automatically enrolled at substantially higher rates with little, or no, notice. These prices greatly exceeded, and later doubled, the standard-offer rate. Electricity Maine, an electricity supply company, sells electricity directly to homes and businesses served by CMP and Emera Maine utilities. The company was incorporated in 2010 and is based in Auburn, Maine. Electricity Maine, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Provider Power, LLC. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas F. Hallett, Esq. Timothy E. Zerillo, Esq. David A. Weyrens, Esq. Benjamin N. Donahue, Esq. HALLETT, ZERILLO & WHIPPLE P.A. 75 Market Street P.O. Box 7508 Portland, ME 04112-7508 Telephone: (207) 775 4255 E-mail: bdonahue@hzwlaw.com EHT PHARMACY: Class Certification Hearing Set for Jan 20 -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Centerville Clinics, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. EHT Pharmacy, LLC, d/b/a Curexa, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10536 (N.D, Ill.), the Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on November 21, 2016, the plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and continued until the next status date. The Plaintiff's motion to seal is granted. No appearance necessary on November 22, 2016. Status hearing is set for January 20, 2017 at 9:00 AM. The parties are directed to meet and discuss the status of the case. The parties are to file a joint status report by January 17, 2017 in the format described on the court's website at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. The parties are directed to discuss settlement, and whether they consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9ocduhUf EMERSON ELECTRIC: Class Cert. Sought in Marketing and Sales Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit re: Emerson Electric Co. Wet/Dry VAC Marketing and Sales Litigation, Case No. 4:12-md-02382-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs Chad Venhaus, Justin Swires, Lauren Checki, Kevin Brees, Chris Willis, and Fred Wilmer in this multidistrict litigation consolidated for pretrial proceedings move the Court to certify the action as a class action against Defendant Emerson Electric Company, and enter an order defining the classes and appointing class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=91ANi42p The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Holland, Esq. R. Seth Crompton, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 300 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 801 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241 8111 Facsimile: (314) 241 5554 E-mail: eholland@allfela.com scrompton@allfela.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. Anthony G. Simon, Esq. Timothy D. Krieger, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314)241 2929 Facsimile: (314)241 2029 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com asimon@simonlawpc.com tkrieger@simonlawpc.com - and - Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. NEBLETT, BEARD & ARSENAULT 2220 Bonaventure Court P.O. Box 1190 Alexandria, LA 71309 Telephone: (216)621 8484 Facsimile: (216)771 1632 E-mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215)592 1500 Facsimile: (215)592 4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Jay Patrick Dinan, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 27300 Riverview Center Blvd., Suite 103 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 EUROSTAR INC: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Disability Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Parker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Eurostar, Inc. d/b/a WSS, Case No. BC641295 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to remove architectural and communication barriers in existing stores, denying equal access to disabled persons. Eurostar, Inc. operates a retail chain of shoe stores headquartered in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310)247-0160 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Offsets $6MM Expense With Deal in Vendor Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the second quarter 2016, it had a litigation settlement expense of $6 million related to the settlement of a class action lawsuit during the period, which was offset by a favorable settlement with a vendor for which the Company was the plaintiff. FLORIDA: Certification of Class Sought in "McKnight" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled AVERY MCKNIGHT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., Case No. 3:16-cv-00990-MMH-JBT (M.D. Fla.), moves for himself, personally, and all others similarly situated, for class certification for injunctive relief claims only to prevent the continuance of the Defendant's alleged federal, constitutional and statutory violations. Avery McKnight alleges that because of the temporary nature of confinement at Northeast Florida State Hospital, the issues are capable of repetition, yet evading review. The Plaintiff adds that many institutionalized residents are reluctant or afraid to take actions that might incur the displeasure of staff, who control nearly every aspect of their daily life. In the alternative, the Plaintiff moves the Court to sever the Plaintiff's individualized claims from those that affect a large number of individuals and certify the applicable claims as a class action. As another alternative, the Plaintiff asks that his discharge from Northeast Florida State Hospital does not moot the injunctive relief claims against the hospital. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HXFyz2Oi FRONTON HOLDINGS: Class Certification Bid in "Rife" Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Joan A. Lenard entered an order in the lawsuit styled RUDY RIFE, the Plaintiff, v. FRONTON HOLDINGS, LLC, D/B/A CASINO MIAMI, and DAVE JONAS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21570-JAL (S.D. Fla.), denying Plaintiff's motion for certification of collective action and for permission to send court supervised notice. The following class is denied: "all persons who are currently, or who were, employed by Fronton Holdings, LLC d/b/a Casino Miami and/or Dave Jonas from May 3, 2013 to the present as a "manager", "supervisor", or other similarly titled position, either directly by Defendants or through any of their subsidiaries or affiliated companies". The Court said, "Here, the opt-ins' Declarations are vague and entirely unhelpful with respect to job requirements. In fact, the opt-ins fail to describe any of their job requirements, so it is impossible for the Court to determine whether they are similarly situated to Plaintiff. (See Garcia Decl., D.E. 27-1; Rosales Decl., D.E. 31-1; Fernandez Decl., D.E. 46-1.). The closest the opt-ins' come to describing their job requirements is vaguely stating that their job requirements do not include hiring, firing, or deciding anyone else's rate of pay. (Garcia Decl. Par. 7(a), (f); Rosales Decl. 7(a), (f); Fernandez Decl. 7(a), (f). This is simply insufficient to meet the "modest factual showing" required at this stage. See Grayson, 79 F.3d at 1097 ("The plaintiffs may meet [their] burden, which is not heavy, by making detailed allegations supported by affidavits which successfully engage defendants' affidavits to the contrary".). Consequently, the Court is constrained to conclude that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his burden of showing a 'reasonable basis' for his claim that there are other similarly situated employees". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uhchRAIZ GBC TOWSON: Refuses to Pay Latina Workers, "Leiva" Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- IRIS PINEDA LEIVA, GLADIS BRENES CASAZOLA, CARLA PINTO, and GEIDI OROMON RAMOS, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and * Employees similarly situated v. GBC TOWSON EAST, LLC d/b/a GINO'S BURGERS AND CHICKEN, ABERDEEN GBC, LLC, WOODBINE VENTURES - ABERDEEN, LLC, A & M HOSPITALITY, LLC, SCOTT AUTRY, JARED MILLER and BRIDGIT KINCAID, Case No. 1:16-cv-03765-JFM (D. Md., Nov. 21, 2016), stems from the Defendants' alleged willful and racially- motivated refusal to pay the Plaintiffs their wages, including minimum and overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiffs are four Latina former employees of the Defendants, who worked as dishwashers, cleaners, food preparation workers, and cooks at the Towson and Aberdeen locations of the Defendants' restaurants, Gino's Burgers and Chicken. GBC Towson East, LLC (d/b/a Gino's Burgers and Chicken) is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in Towson, Maryland. Aberdeen GBC, LLC (d/b/a Gino's Burgers and Chicken) is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in Aberdeen, Maryland. Woodbine Ventures - Aberdeen LLC (d/b/a Gino's Burgers and Chicken) is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in Aberdeen. A & M Hospitality, LLC (d/b/a Gino's Burgers and Chicken) is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in Aberdeen. The Corporate Defendants owned and operated "fast casual" restaurants at two locations in Maryland, one in Towson ("Gino's Towson") and one in Aberdeen ("Gino's Aberdeen") as "joint employers" and part of a single enterprise trading as Gino's Burgers and Chicken. Scott Autry is an owner, agent or principal of Gino's. Jared Miller is the current sole owner of Gino's Towson. Bridgit Kincaid, during the time period relevant to this action, has been a manager/supervisor at both Restaurants. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Louis J. Ebert, Esq. Jamar R. Brown, Esq. ROSENBERG MARTIN GREENBERG LLP 25 S. Charles St., Suite 2115 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 649-4995 Facsimile: (410) 727-6600 E-mail: lebert@rosenbergmartin.com jbrown@rosenbergmartin.com - and - Monisha Cherayil, Esq. THE PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER One North Charles Street, Suite 200 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 625-9409 Facsimile: (410) 625-9423 E-mail: cherayilm@publicjustice.org GENERAL MOTORS: Sued by Puente Over Wrong Fuel Economy Estimates ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN PUENTE and JOSHUA JENNINGS On Behalf of Themselves and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-08688-RMB-AMD (D.N.J., November 21, 2016), is brought on behalf of a class composed of all current and former owners or lessees of 2014 to 2016 Chevrolet Sonics that were manufactured, marketed and sold or leased with incorrect EPA-fuel economy estimates. For years (potentially as far back as 2011 when GM began manufacturing the Sonic), the Defendant advertised that the Chevy Sonic was EPA-rated up to 40 miles per gallon on the highway, according to the complaint. These ratings, however, were false, the Plaintiffs contend. They assert that as detailed in a memorandum circulated by GM to its authorized dealerships, GM admitted the EPA Fuel Economy for the 2014-2016 Chevy Sonics, with manual transmission, were overestimated by at least 1 MPG. GM is a limited liability company organized under Delaware law with its principal office located in Detroit, Michigan. GM designs, tests, manufactures, distributes, warrants, sells, and leases various vehicles under several prominent brand names, including, but not limited to, Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, GM, and Pontiac in this district and throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. Randee Matloff, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com rmatloff@nagelrice.com - and - Joseph LoPiccolo, Esq. John N. Poulos, Esq. POULOS LOPICCOLO PC 1305 South Roller Road Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 757-0165 E-mail: lopiccolo@pllawfirm.com poulos@pllawfirm.com GILBERT MEGA: Accused by "Medina" Suit of Failing to Pay Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Louie Medina, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated v. Gilbert Mega Furniture, LLC, Ahwatukee Mega Furniture, LLC, Mega Furniture & Accessories, LLC, Mega Furniture Avondale, LLC, Mega Furniture Bell, LLC, Mega Furniture Scottsdale, LLC, Phoenix Mega Furniture, LLC, Karim Kanjiyani and Jane Doe Kanjiyani, husband and wife, Saleem Kanjiyani and Jane Doe Kanjiyani, husband and wife, Yasmin Daredia and John Doe Daredia, husband and wife, and Yasmin Darcelia and John Doe Darcelia, husband and wife, Case No. 2:16-cv-04033-SPL (D. Ariz., November 21, 2016), accuses the Defendants of unlawfully failing to pay overtime and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and failing to pay wages due in violation of the Arizona Wage Statute. The Mega Furniture Defendants are Arizona limited liability companies, authorized to do business in Arizona. The Individual Defendants are members of Mega Furniture. The Defendants are in the business of selling furniture at 10 locations throughout Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ty D. Frankel, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 E-mail: tfrankel@bffb.com - and - Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. 600 W. Broadway, Suite 900 LAW OFFICES OF BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMA & BALINT, P.C. San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-7748 E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Tripp Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER TRIPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HALLIBURTON COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-03434 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 20, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, Halliburton employs oilfield personnel to carry out its work. In this regard, Plaintiff and the other workers like him were typically scheduled for 12 hour shifts, 7 days a week, for weeks at a time. But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Defendant paid these workers a daily rate with no overtime pay and improperly classified them as independent contractors. Halliburton is an oil and natural gas company operating worldwide and throughout the United States, including in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751 0025 Facsimile: (713) 751 0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877 8788 Facsimile: (713) 877 8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com HOSTA HOLDINGS: Class Certification Sought in "Bellanich" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled STEPHEN BELLANICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOSTA HOLDINGS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv 06435 (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but asks the Court to enter and continue the motion until after the completion of discovery on class-wide issues, at which time Plaintiff will submit a more detailed memorandum of points and authorities in support of class certification. The Plaintiff defined the following classes: Autodialed No Consent Class: "all persons in the United States who (1) Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of Defendant) sent text messages, (2) to the person's cellular telephone number, and (3) for whom Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent in the same manner as Defendant claims it supposedly obtained prior express consent to send automated text messages to the Plaintiff; and Autodialed Stop Call Class: "all persons in the United States who (1) from November 3, 2016 to the present (2) Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of Defendant) sent text messages, (2) on the person's cellular telephone number, and (3) for the purpose of promoting a business or service, (4) after the person informed Defendant that s/he no longer wished to receive text messages from Defendant". According to the complaint, Defendant is a business loan origination company offering working capital to small businesses by providing a cash advance against their credit card receivables. The Defendant uses the trade name "GoAccredited". Defendant purchases lists of consumers and knowingly sends unsolicited text messages to consumers' cellular telephones in an attempt to solicit business. Defendant took no steps to acquire the oral or written prior express consent of Plaintiff or the other members of the classes who received the unsolicited text messages, and it sent the messages while aware that prior express consent had not been obtained. Using an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS), Defendant sent the same text messages en masse to thousands of cellular telephone numbers throughout the United States. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M5OqWfak The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan L. Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN L. COLEMAN, P.A. 5 Penn Plaza, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: 877 333 9427 Facsimile: 888 498 8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213 0675 Facsimile: (303) 927 0809 HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Wylie" Class Suit in Cent. Dist. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Hyundai Motor America. The case is captioned Shawna Wylie f/k/a Shawna Brown, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 2:16-cv-08742 (C.D. Cal., November 22, 2016). Hyundai Motor America operates an automobile company that designs, engineers, produces, markets and distributes luxury vehicles. Shawna Wylie is a pro se plaintiff. INGRAM & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Redding" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Latasha Redding, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ingram & Associates LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv- 06516 (E.D.N.Y., November 22, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Ingram & Associates LLC operates a law firm in New York. Latasha Redding is a pro se plaintiff. INSIEME INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Melgar" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADAN MELGAR; SELENE PENA v. INSIEME, INC. dba CHEZ SHEA; QUMARS ATIN; FEY ATIN, Case No. 16CIV02374 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty., November 15, 2016), accuses the Defendants of failing to pay the Plaintiffs their overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated individuals. Insieme, Inc., doing business as Chez Shea, is a California corporation, with its principal place of business in San Mateo County, California. The Individual Defendants are residents in San Mateo County, California, who are the principal and controlling stockholders in Chez Shea. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert David Baker, Esq. ROBERT DAVID BAKER, INC. 80 South White Road San Jose, CA 95127 Telephone: (408) 251-3400 Facsimile: (408) 251-3401 E-mail: rbaker@rdblaw.net INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Sued Over Sale of Company to Genesys -------------------------------------------------------------- KARL TRAHAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE GROUP, INC., GENESYS TELECOMMUNICATIONS LABORATORIES, INC., GIANT MERGER SUB INC., GREENEDEN LUX 3 S.AR.L., GREENEDEN U.S. HOLDINGS I, LLC, GREENEDEN U.S. HOLDINGS II, LLC, DONALD E. BROWN, MITCHELL E. DANIELS, EDWARD L. HAMBURG, MICHAEL C. HEIM, MARK E. HILL and RICHARD A. RECK, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03161-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks an award of damages sufficient to redress shareholders for the damage caused by Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting said breaches and other violations of federal law arising out of Defendants' efforts to complete the sale of the Company to Genesys, pursuant to an unfair process and for an unfair price. On August 31, 2016, the Defendants announced that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement (Merger Agreement), which had been approved by the Board. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Genesys will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Interactive common stock for the inadequate price of $60.50 per share. The Acquisition is the product of a fundamentally unfair process that is designed to ensure the sale of Interactive to Genesys on terms preferential to Genesys and Interactive's Board members and management, but detrimental to plaintiff and the other Interactive shareholders. The process leading to the Acquisition was tainted by conflicts, tilted toward Genesys and driven by Interactive's Board and executive management, who collectively own more than 4.8 million shares of Interactive stock. For the Board and Company management, the Acquisition provides a liquidity event for their large illiquid Interactive holdings. But that is not all. In addition to "cashing in" their illiquid holdings, the Company's management will be staying on board after the transaction. As indicated in the press release announcing the Acquisition, Interactive's senior management team will likely remain with the new organization after the Acquisition is complete. As a result of the unfair process, the Acquisition price of $60.50 per share is also unfair, as the Board willfully or recklessly failed to obtain adequate compensation for Interactive's shareholders. The Acquisition price of $60.50 per share represents a miniscule 7% premium to the closing price of Interactive common stock on the day before the deal was announced. According to Yahoo! Finance, at least one analyst has set a price target for Interactive stock at $67.00 per share. In the last three years, Interactive common stock traded as high as $81.59 per share on March 4, 2014. Interactive offers cloud and on-premise solutions for customer engagement, communications and collaboration, with offices in Indianapolis, Indiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathleen A. Farinas, Esq. Linda George, Esq. GEORGE & FARINAS, LLP 151 N. Delaware Street, Suite 1700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: 317 637 6071 E-mail: kf@lgkflaw.com - and - ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP DAVID T. WISSBROECKER EDWARD M. GERGOSIAN 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231 1058 Facsimile: (619) 231 7423 - and - JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP Frank J. Johnson W. Scott Holleman 600 West Broadway, Suite 1540 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230 0063 Facsimile: (619) 255 1856 IXIA: Settlement in "Santore" Suit Became Final on August 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ Ixia said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the settlement in the lawsuit entitled Felix Santore v. Ixia, et al., became final on August 31, 2016. On November 14, 2013, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Felix Santore v. Ixia, Victor Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol Ginsberg was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from April 10, 2010 through October 14, 2013. The initial complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's recognition of revenues related to its warranty and software maintenance contracts and the academic credentials and employment history of the Company's former President and Chief Executive Officer, Victor Alston. The complaint also alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to make certain disclosures, regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects, including regarding the financial statements and internal financial controls that were the subject of the Company's April 2013 restatement of certain of its prior period financial statements. The complaint further alleged that the Company lacked adequate internal financial controls and issued materially false and misleading financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011, and the fiscal quarters ended March 31, 2011; June 30, 2011; September 30, 2011; March 31, 2012; June 30, 2012; and September 30, 2012. The complaint, which purported to assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, sought, on behalf of the purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. On March 24, 2014, following a proceeding to select a lead plaintiff in the matter, the court issued an order appointing Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System (the "Oklahoma Group") as lead plaintiffs. On June 11, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a first amended complaint, which asserted claims against the same defendants under the same legal theories set forth in the initial complaint. The first amended complaint also contained allegations that certain of the individual defendants increased their trading in the Company's stock during February, March, April, and May of 2011 and during February and March of 2013, and that the defendants sought to inflate the Company's reported deferred revenues during the period of February 4, 2011 through April 3, 2013. On July 18, 2014, all named defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Law Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). After briefing and a hearing on October 6, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing the first amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court gave the Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended complaint. On November 5, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a second amended complaint. On January 6, 2015, the named defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. After briefing and a hearing on April 13, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court gave the Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended complaint. On April 24, 2015, the court issued an order staying the class action until July 31, 2015, pending the outcome of a voluntary, non-binding mediation scheduled for July 23, 2015 to explore a possible settlement of both the purported securities class action and the shareholder derivative action discussed below. On July 23, 2015, the parties conducted the scheduled mediation with respect to the purported class action but did not reach an agreement to resolve and settle the litigation. However, settlement discussions continued after the mediation session, and on August 14, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle the purported securities class action litigation. On November 17, 2015, the Company entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated November 11, 2015 relating to the proposed settlement of the class action (the "Class Action Settlement Agreement"). This Class Action Settlement Agreement would resolve all of the claims asserted against the defendants in the class action and was entered into subject to the Court's preliminary and final approval. The Class Action Settlement Agreement provided, among other terms, for a settlement payment of $3.5 million. The Class Action Settlement Agreement does not include any admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the Company or the individual defendants, and upon final approval of the settlement by the Court, provides for a dismissal of, and a release of all claims asserted against the defendants in, the class action. In February 2016, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement and scheduled a hearing for July 29, 2016 to consider final approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement. In March 2016, the Company's insurer funded the payment of $3.5 million into an escrow account established pursuant to the Class Action Settlement Agreement. Following a hearing on July 29, 2016, the Court on August 1, 2016 entered an order granting final approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement. The final order also approved the award of attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $1.1 million, which was paid from the settlement payment of $3.5 million held in the escrow account established pursuant to the Class Action Settlement Agreement. The deadline to appeal the Court's order was August 31, 2016. As the deadline to appeal has expired and there was no appeal, the settlement became final on August 31, 2016. Ixia was incorporated on May 27, 1997, as a California corporation. The Company provides application performance and security resilience solutions so that organizations can validate, secure, and optimize their physical and virtual networks. Enterprises, service providers, network equipment manufacturers, and governments worldwide rely on Ixia's solutions to deploy new technologies and achieve efficient, secure ongoing operation of their networks. Ixia's product solutions consist of its high performance hardware platforms, software applications, and services, including warranty and maintenance offerings and professional services. JOYCE STEEL: Keith et al. Seek to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- AARON KEITH; JOEL FARRELL; RYAN COULTER; CHRIS GRIFFIN; SHALON BOWEN; Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. JOYCE STEEL ERECTION, LTD.; JOYCE CRANE, INC.; JOE BOB JOYCE, Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-01302 (E.D. Tex., November 16, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case alleges that Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were paid "straight time" instead of overtime for tasks that are clearly compensable, such as driving to and from job sites, and yard time. Defendants also routinely allegedly deducted lunch breaks from their workers, even when such breaks were not taken. Joyce Crane, Inc. and Joyce Steel Erection, Ltd. provide heavy duty lifting and rigging services for construction projects. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Suite 15 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: (817) 908-9861 Fax: (817) 394-2412 Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com LADENBURG THALMANN: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Fuse Suits v. Miller ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. awaits ruling on Defendants' motion to consolidate two purported class actions arising from Miller Energy Resources, Inc.'s securities offerings, according to Ladenburg's November 7, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. In November 2015, two purported class action complaints were filed in state court in Tennessee against officers and directors of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller"), as well as Miller's auditors and nine firms that underwrote six securities offerings in 2013 and 2014, and raised approximately $151,000. Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of two of the offerings. The complaints allege, among other things, that the offering materials were misleading based on the purportedly overstated valuation of certain assets, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other relief. In December 2015 the defendants removed the complaints to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee; in September 2016, the court denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand. Defendants' motion to consolidate the actions is currently pending. Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims. LADENBURG THALMANN: Bids to Junk Plains All American Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that motions to dismiss are currently pending in the lawsuit against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., et al. In January 2016, an amended complaint for a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., related entities and their officers and directors. The amended complaint added as defendants Ladenburg and other underwriters of securities offerings in 2013 and 2014 that in the aggregate raised approximately $2,900,000. Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of the October 2013 initial public offering. The complaints allege, among other things, that the offering materials were misleading based on representations concerning the maintenance and integrity of the issuer's pipelines, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other relief. Motions to dismiss are currently pending. Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims. LADENBURG THALMANN: Defends Consolidated Suit vs. American Realty ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it will vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the consolidated lawsuit involving American Realty Capital Partners, Inc. In December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against American Realty Capital Partners, Inc. ("ARCP"), certain affiliated entities and individuals, ARCP's auditing firm, and the underwriters of ARCP's May 2014 $1,656,000 common stock offering ("May 2014 Offering") and three prior note offerings. The complaints have been consolidated. Ladenburg was named as a defendant as one of 17 underwriters of the May 2014 Offering and as one of eight underwriters of ARCP's July 2013 offering of $300,000 in convertible notes. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the offering materials were misleading based on financial reporting of expenses, improperly-calculated AFFO (adjusted funds from operations), and false and misleading Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, including statements as to ARCP's internal controls, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other relief. In June 2016, the court denied the underwriters' motions to dismiss the complaint. Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims. LADENBURG THALMANN: Settlement Reached in Securities America Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a settlement was reached with the bankruptcy trustee resolving the claims against one of its principal operating subsidiaries -- Securities America, Inc. In September 2015, Securities America was named as a defendant in lawsuits brought by the bankruptcy trustee of a broker-dealer (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota) and a putative class action by the shareholders of that broker-dealer (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota). The lawsuits allege that certain of the debtor broker-dealer's assets were transferred to Securities America in June 2015 for inadequate consideration. In October 2016, a settlement was reached with the bankruptcy trustee resolving those claims; the amount paid in connection with the settlement was not material. The remaining complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, and other relief. Securities America intends to vigorously defend against these claims. LASERTONE CORP: Faces "Shakur" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sheik Shakur, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lasertone Corp., Supplytek International LLC, Isaac Deutsch, and Michael Schlesinger, Case No. 1:16-cv-06439 (E.D.N.Y., November 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate an office supply store located at 10203 Avenue D, Brooklyn, New York 11236. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Cafaro, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 583-7400 Facsimile: (212) 583-7401 E-mail: bcafaro@cafaroesq.com LEE COUNTY, FL: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Lopez" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Mabel Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mike Scott, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Lee County, Florida, Case No. 2:15-cv-00303-PAM-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Paul A. Magnuson entered an order denying a class of: "individuals, both drivers and passengers, who were stopped and detained by Sheriff's deputies using such devices from May 12, 2011 to May 12, 2015". The Court said, "Lopez has sufficiently established that she "will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). But the adequacy of her representation cannot overcome her failure to establish the other three Rule 23(a) factors. The record simply does not support her contentions regarding numerosity, commonality, or typicality. Certification of a class is therefore inappropriate". In August 2012, a Deputy Sheriff from the Lee County Sheriff's Office stopped Plaintiff Mabel1 Lopez's car and issued her a citation for speeding. The Deputy used a Python II model radar gun to detect Lopez's speed. Under Florida law, law enforcement may use only approved speed-detection devices to determine the speed of vehicles on Florida roads. At the time of Lopez's traffic stop, the Python II had not been approved for use in Florida. The Lee County Sheriff's Office had a total of 85 Python II devices in use until January 2015. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=68AwdpZA LEGACY HOME: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ SALMA D. HERNANDEZ, ET AL, the Plaintiffs, v. LEGACY HOME HEALTH AGENCY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01164 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks all damages available under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including back wages, liquidated damages, legal fees, costs and post-judgment interest. The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and as a FLSA collective action on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals who worked for Defendant as home health service providers, and like Plaintiff, were not paid time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven-day workweek in the time period of three years preceding the date this lawsuit was filed and forward. Legacy Home provides patient care and personal & professional growth opportunities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo A. Garcia-Tagle LAW OFFICE OF RICARDO A. GARCIA-TAGLE 315 S. St. Mary's Street San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 444 1599 Facsimile: (210) 855 6098 E-mail: Ricardo@ragarcialaw.com MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Expects No Add'l Expenses in Cadillac Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc., expects to incur no expenses in 2016 or thereafter in connection with the settled purported class action lawsuit initiated by Cadillac Partners, according to the Company's November 7, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. On September 18, 2015, an Order and Final Judgment was entered by the Superior Court of the State of California, approving a settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced on May 30, 2014, in Santa Clara County Superior Court, State of California, on behalf of Cadillac Partners and others similarly situated, naming as defendants, MabVax Therapeutics, the Company and the Company's directors, Hudson Bay Capital Management LP, Bio IP Ventures LLC, Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd., and Hudson Bay IP Opportunities Master Fund LP, together the "Parties," alleging the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duties, in connection with the Company's Merger with MabVax Therapeutics. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the Merger and obtain damages as well as attorneys' and expert fees and costs. The Company said it expects to incur no expenses in 2016 or thereafter in connection with this lawsuit or settlement. MabVax is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing innovative monoclonal antibody-based therapeutics and vaccines for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. MEMORIAL HEALTH: Class Certification Sought in "Myers" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned LYNNETT MYERS, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM MARIETTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-02956-ALM-TPK (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move the Court for certification and approval of an opt-out notice of a class consisting of: "all of Defendants' current and former Nurses and Patient Care Technicians who were hourly employees and subject to Defendants' automatic meal deduction policy during the three years before this Complaint was filed up to the present". The Plaintiffs filed this action on October 29, 2015, alleging federal and state wage and hour claims against Defendants. On January 1, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective class. On August 17, 2016, the Court conditionally certified the following Collective Class: "all of Defendants' current and former hourly employees who were responsible for direct patient care and were subject to Defendants' automatic meal deduction policy at any time during the three years prior to the granting of this motion to the present". Since certifying the Collective Class the parties have engaged in additional discovery. With this additional information, the Plaintiffs have sufficient evidence to meet the more rigorous standards of Rule 23 class certification. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=28UbVEBf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven C. Babin, Jr., Esq. Lance Chapin, Esq. CHAPIN LEGAL GROUP, LLC 580 South High Street, Suite 330 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: (614) 221 9100 Facsimile: (614) 221 9272 E-mail: sbabin@chapinlegal.com MODEL N INC: Excludes Expenses in Securities Suits in 4Q Results ---------------------------------------------------------------- Model N, Inc., excludes from its fourth quarter results the effects of legal expense for securities class action lawsuits filed in September 2014 and January 2015, according to the Company's November 7, 2016, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. While a large component of its expenses incurred in certain periods, the Company believes investors may want to exclude the effects of certain items in order to compare the Company's financial performance with that of other companies and between time periods. These expenses include legal expense for the securities class action lawsuits filed in September 2014 and January 2015. The Company believes that the exclusion of these legal expenses provides for a better comparison of its operation results to prior periods and to its peer companies. MORTGAGE CONTRACTING: Class Cert. Bid Taken Under Submission ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled Lawrence Weinstein v. Mortgage Contracting Services, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-02521-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Jesus G. Bernal entered an order taking under submission the following: 1. Hearing on Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and 2. Plaintiff's motions for class certification. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Xssox0p2 The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis Frank Moss, Esq. 15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste 207 DENNIS MOSS LAW Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (310) 773 0323 Facsimile: (310) 861 0389 E-mail: dennis@dennismosslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric M. Gruzen, Esq. Kerri H. Skaue, Esq. PECKAR & ABRAMSON, PC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 228 1075 Facsimile: (310) 228 1076 E-mail: egruzen@pecklaw.com MULTI-SERVICIOS: Hernandez Sues Over Check-Cashing Services ----------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. MULTI-SERVICIOS LATINO, INC., RIGOBERTO AGUILAR, individually, EUGENIO AGUILAR, individually, SAUL HERNANDEZ, individually, RON'S TEMPORARY HELP SERVICES, INC. and RON MICHELON, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10748 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to recover wages stolen from low-wage residents of the Little Village community of Chicago, Illinois through a scheme involving currency exchanges, and Chicago area staffing agencies. According to the complaint, to avoid the prohibition under Illinois law against charging temporary laborers for transportation, many area staffing agencies, including Ron's Staffing, engage raiteros such as Rigo, Eugenio and Saul to recruit temporary laborers from Little Village in Chicago, a community heavily populated with recent immigrants who are easily exploited, and to transport those laborers to a staffing agency's client companies where the staffing agency has a contract or agreement to provide temporary laborers for a fee. Rather than compensate the raiteros directly, staffing agencies that engage in this unlawful scheme provide the raiteros with the weekly paychecks of the temporary laborers, including Plaintiff, who then take the laborers' paychecks to a currency exchange, in this case Multi-Servicios CE, with which they have an arrangement. The raitero provides the currency exchange with the number of rides provided to each laborer for that week. On pay day, the raiteros then drop the laborers off at the currency exchange where the laborer provides the cashier with their name and the name of the raitero. Once the currency exchange cashier locates that laborer's check, the laborer is required to endorse the check and the currency exchange provides the laborer with the cash equivalent of the amount of the check minus the currency exchange's check cashing fee and minus the equivalent of eight dollars ($8.00) per day for each day the laborer was given a ride by the raitero that week. For example, if the raitero indicated to the currency exchange that a laborer was transported four times that week, the currency exchange withheld thirty-two dollars ($32). This additional deduction constituted an unlawful check-cashing fee charged to the laborer by the currency exchange in violation of the Illinois Currency Exchange Act (ICEA), In exchange for bringing the check-cashing business of Plaintiff and other temporary laborers to the Multi-Servicios CE, the agents of the Multi-Servicios CE agreed to withhold the ride charges on behalf of the staffing agencies' agents, raiteros Rigo, Eugenio and Saul (hereafter Defendant Raiteros), and hold them in an account for each respective Defendant Raitero. Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated laborers, that the scheme engaged in between the area staffing agencies, including Ron's Staffing, their agents the Defendant Raiteros, and the currency exchange, Multi-Servicios CE violated multiple state and federal laws designed to protect workers from theft of their wages and designed to protect consumers from forced and excessive charges for check-cashing services. Raiteros is a term coined in a Chicago largely immigrant community to refer to van drivers who recruit and transport workers for area temporary staffing firms. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Williams, Esq. Alvar Ayala, Esq. WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, PC 53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 795 9121 NATIONAL RETAIL: Rainboth-Venditti Seek Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled MICHELLE RAINBOTH-VENDITTI On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL RETAIL SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv- 00137-MAD-ATB (N.D.N.Y), the Plaintiff move the Court for an order: 1) finding that Plaintiffs have met their burden with regards to their Fair Labor Standards Act claims and conditionally certifying Plaintiffs' claims as a collective action; 2) authorizing a notice to be mailed to all members of each subclass consisting of: "Merchandisers, and other persons with similar job titles, duties, and compensation structures, employed by National Retail Solutions (Defendant) within three years from the date of certification to the present, who were not paid all straight time and overtime compensation due and owing"; 3) requiring Defendant to provide to Plaintiffs the following, within 10 days of the Court's Order: a list, in electronic and importable format, of the first and last names, last- known addresses, telephone numbers, dates of employment, location of employment, last four digits of the individual's social security number, and date of birth of all members of the putative class; 4) requiring Defendant to post the Notice of this lawsuit in conspicuous locations where it employs its Merchandisers, and others with similar job titles duties, and compensation structures; 5) tolling the statute of limitations from the date of the filing of Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification until the close of the opt-in period; 6) designating Michelle Rainboth-Venditti and Randi Dayberry as class representatives; and 7) approving Plaintiff's counsel to act as class counsel in this matter. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1yCcp5Dt The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew E. Osman, Esq. OSMAN & SMAY LLP 8500 W. 110th St., Suite 330 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: 1-913-667-9243 Facsimile: 1-866-470-9243 E-maikl: mosman@workerwagerights.com - and - Michael J. Redenburg, Esq. MICHAEL J. REDENBURG, PC 11 Park Place, Suite 817 New York, NY 10007 E-mail: mredenburg@mjrlaw-ny.com Telephone: 1-212-240-9465 Facsimile: 1-917-591-1667 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Denied Class Certification in "Davis" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled WILL DAVIS, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-02920-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Richard Seeborg entered an order denying the following classes and subclass: FCRA Class: "all persons in the United States, who entered into a TPP pursuant to a non-HAMP mortgage modification with Nationstar, who were current on their mortgage payments, as demonstrated by Nationstar's records, prior to the time they initiated efforts to enter into a mortgage modification with Nationstar, whose consumer credit report from any of the major credit reporting agencies(Transunion, Equifax, Experian and Innovis) reflected an inaccurate consumer credit report inquiry, from two years prior to the filing of the complaint, to present"; FCRA Dispute Subclass: "all FCRA Class members who thereafter disputed the inquiry to one or more of the major credit reporting agencies"; CCRA Class: "all persons in California, who entered into a TPP pursuant to a nonHAMP mortgage modification with Nationstar, who were current on their mortgage payments, as demonstrated by Nationstar's records, prior to the time they initiated efforts to enter into a mortgage modification with Nationstar, and whose consumer credit report from any of the major credit reporting agencies (Transunion, Equifax, Experian and Innovis) reflected an inaccurate consumer credit report inquiry, from two years prior to the filing of the complaint, to present". The Court said, "Davis insists this action -- where a relatively large number of consumers have suffered alleged injuries that may be too small to pursue individually -- is exactly the type of case for which class treatment is both appropriate and crucial. The fatal flaw in Davis's position, however, is that the FCRA -- which once permitted no private right of action -- only provides for a private right of action in limited circumstances, and those circumstances include elements not suited for class- wide treatment. Davis's claim under the CCRA at first blush might seem to present an easier road to recovery because it does provide a private right of action for providing inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency. The CCRA, however, requires a showing of actual damages. While a need for individualized damages inquiries is not an automatic bar to class certification, it raises a serious predominance issue here. See Ramirez, supra, 301 F.R.D. 408, 425 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (declining to certify CCRA damages class). More fundamentally, however, in the absence of a viable basis to pursue a class action under federal law, this not an appropriate forum to pursue a class action under California law involving solely a California class". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mwbaZd1o NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Fekete" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Moishe Fekete, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-06514 (E.D.N.Y., November 22, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Nationwide Credit Inc. operates a debt collection firm headquartered in Temple, Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J. Sasson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 339-0856 Facsimile: (347) 244-7178 E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com NEW CHINA: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jian Chen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. New China Royal Express Inc. d/b/a China Royal, Yi Hua Zheng, and Yu Lin Zheng, Case No. 2:16-cv-08702-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., November 22, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a Chinese restaurant in New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keli Liu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: kliu@hanglaw.com O.B. PARRIS: Sued Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------- BRIAN C. SCHARTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of THE FEMALE HEALTH COMPANY, the Plaintiffs, v. O.B. PARRISH, WILLIAM R. CARGIULO, DONNA FELCH, DAVID R. BETHUNE, Honorable ANDREW S. LOVE, MARY MARGARET FRANK, SHARON MECKLES, ELGAR PEERSCHKE, MITCHELL S. STEINER, HARRY FISCH, GEORGES MAKHOUL, MARIO EISENBERGER, and LUCY LU, the Defendants, and THE FEMALE HEALTH COMPANY, the Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-10736 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendants' breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment. On November 4, 2016, Plaintiff Brian C. Schartz commenced this putative class action by filing in state court his Verified Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Complaint. The State Court Action was brought by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of a putative class of all others similarly situated (the Class), as well as derivatively on behalf of The Female Health Company (Female Health). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants purportedly caused the merger of Female Health and Aspen Park Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Aspen Park) without proper shareholder approval (the Transaction), resulting in losses to Plaintiff and the Class. On November 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction asking to enjoin the Board of Directors (Board) of Female Health from taking actions to complete the Transaction, including hiring new employees, converting securities of Female Health, issuing equity or debt securities of Female Health, and transferring funds between Female Health and Aspen Park. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Amelia S. Newton, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 West Washington Street Chicago, IL 60602 - and - Eric L. Zagar, Esq. Michael C. Wagner, Esq. Matthew A. Goldstein, Esq. MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 The Defendants are represented by: Steven Marc Malina, Esq. Daniel Hildebrand, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312 456 8400 Facsimile: 312 456 8435 OAKS DIAGNOSTICS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Break ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dimas Martinez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Oaks Diagnostics, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC641280 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 21, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of requiring employees to work in excess of five consecutive hours a day without providing a 30 minute, continuous and uninterrupted, duty-free meal period for every five hours of work, or without compensation for meal periods that were not provided by the end of the fifth hour of work or tenth hour of work. The Oaks Diagnostics, Inc. is a California-based medical facilities providing radiology and diagnostics services, including Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Computed Tomography (CT), x- rays, ultrasound, fluoroscopy, and neuro-diagnostic studies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Farzad Rastegar, Esq. RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC 22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 961-9600 Facsimile: (310) 961-9094 E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com OCWEN FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Securities Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit re: Ocwen Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 9:14-cv-81057-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. William P. Dimtrilouleas entered an order: 1. certifying a class consisting of: "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Ocwen common stock from May 2, 2013 through December 19, 2014, inclusive, and were damaged thereby; 2. certifying Plaintiffs Sjunde AP-Fonden and Jay E. Thren as representatives for members of the Class; and 3. certifying Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Class Counsel and Sallah, Astarita & Cox, LLC as Liason Class counsel; and On or before November 24, 2016, the parties shall jointly file for approval by the Court a proposed notice to Class members; alternatively, if the parties cannot agree on a proposed notice, Plaintiffs shall file a proposed notice on or before November 24, 2016, and Defendant shall file any objections within three days of the filing of Plaintiffs' proposed notice. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and members of Defendants' immediate families, any person, firm, trust, corporation, officer, director, or other individual or entity in which any Defendant has or had a controlling interest, or which is related to or affiliated with any Defendant, and the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest, or assigns of any such excluded party; and excluded from the Class are Defendant's officers, directors, employees, and those who purchased the Product for the purpose of resale; also excluded from the Class are any personal injury claims. The Court said, "The Court finds that common issues do predominate over individual issues. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that common issues of law and fact that are susceptible to common proof predominate over any issues that may be subject to individualized proof. Furthermore, the Court finds that Defendants' arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. Defendants argue that there are differences between AP7 and the Class due to AP7's position as a short seller and due to the fact that AP7 sold all its Ocwen stock by November 23, 2014. As already discussed above, the Court does not find that AP7's position as a short seller disqualifies its claim as to the FOM theory, nor does the Court find that it creates a conflict between AP7's interests and the interests of the Class. To the extent that AP7's interest in Ocwen stock ended on November 23, 2014, adding named Plaintiff Mr. Thren resolves any issue about AP7's sale of all Ocwen stock on November 23, 2014 because Mr. Thren retained his shares beyond that point. Thus, the Court finds that the predominance factor under Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1vxcRQrx ON SEMICONDUCTOR: "Woo" Shareholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- ON Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the purported class action lawsuit captioned Woo v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., was voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiff. On December 14, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a shareholder class action lawsuit filed in state court in Delaware against the Company, Merger Sub, Fairchild and certain directors of Fairchild with respect to the Fairchild Agreement entered into between our Merger Sub and Fairchild in November 2015, by which the Company commenced a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Fairchild. The lawsuit alleged breach of duty by the individual defendants and aiding and abetting by the Company and the Merger Sub and was docketed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as Woo v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case # 11798VCL. In March 2016, the plaintiff amended the complaint to allege that Fairchild's failure to accept the proposal from a third party constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and that certain disclosures filed on Form 14D-9 were misleading or inaccurate. As relief, the amended complaint sought, among other things, an injunction against the tender offer and the merger that are part of the Fairchild Transaction, an accounting for damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. On October 26, 2016, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. PACKERS SANITATION: Faces "Kelly" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- HUEY KELLY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VS. PACKERS SANITATION SERVICES, INC., LTD., Case No. 2:16-cv-01277 (E.D. Tex., November 16, 2016), alleges violations of Plaintiff's statutory employment right to receive overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff's job at Packers Sanitation Services was as a lead worker on the sanitation shift at the Pilgrims Pride chicken processing plant. The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr. HOMMEL LAW FIRM 1404 Rice Road, Suite 200 Tyler, TX 75703 Phone: 903-596-7100 Fax: 469-533-1618 PPG INDUSTRIES: Amos Class Cert. Bid Denied Pending Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Patricia L. Amos, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. PPG Industries, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:05-cv- 00070-MHW-TPK (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Michael H. Watson entered an order: 1. granting PPG's motion to reopen discovery; 2. reminding parties to confer in good faith when scheduling disposition. 3. denying without prejudice to renewal Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. 4. denying without prejudice parties' motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs' motion to supplement; and 5. advising parties that any forthcoming motion of any kind must comply with S.D. Ohio Civ. R 7.2 and 7.3 as well as with the Undersigned's Standing Order, pp 1-2. In particular, motions and supporting memoranda must be filed as one submission. The Court said, "Discovery is reopened but limited to the claims of the New Plaintiffs. Such discovery must be completed no later than February 8, 2017. If the parties are unable to resolve a discovery dispute extra judicially, they are encouraged to contact the assigned Magistrate Judge before filing a discovery- related motion. Motions for class certification are due no later than March 8, 2017 and will be briefed within rule. Updated dispositive motions, if any, be filed no later than March 8, 2017 and be briefed within rule. While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs' request, the Court concludes for the reasons discussed supra that it is necessary to extend the deadlines for filing motions for class certification and for summary judgment, which will reflect, inter alia, information obtained during the reopened discovery period". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4i6DnNAV PREMIER NUTRITION: Sued Over Joint Juice Products False Ads ----------------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR SANDOVAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION f/k/a JOINT JUICE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16- cv-06708 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks actual damages or the sum of $100, whichever is greater, and awards up to three times of actual damages for Defendant's violations of the Unfair Practices Act. The suit is a consumer protection class action brought by Plaintiff arising out of Defendant's false advertising its "Joint Juice" Products. According to the complaint, the Defendant claims Joint Juice provides significant health benefits for the joints of all consumers who drink its Products. These claimed health benefits are the only reason a consumer would purchase Joint Juice. The Defendant's advertising claims, however, are false, misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public. Through an extensive, integrated, and widespread nationwide marketing campaign, Defendant promises that Joint Juice will support and nourish cartilage, lubricate joints, and improve joint comfort. Defendant asserts that the ingredient glucosamine hydrochloride will provide these significant health benefits. The same promise is made on all of the subject Joint Juice Products and throughout the Joint Juice marketing materials. For example, the Joint Juice six-bottle packaging prominently states that the Product "helps keep cartilage lubricated and flexible", and that consumers should "drink daily for healthy, flexible joints". The Defendant markets, sells, and distributes Joint Juice, a line of joint health dietary supplements. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338 1100 Facsimile: (619) 338 1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com lhurst@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com - and - TODD D. CARPENTER, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 347 3517 Facsimile: (619) 756 6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com - and - ADAM J. LEVITT, Esq. EDMUND S. ARONOWITZ, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214 0000 Facsimile: (312) 214 0001 E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com earonowitz@gelaw.com - and - Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 N. State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236 0000 Facsimile: (312) 948 9212 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com PRICELINE GROUP: Faces 30 Suits Over Travel Transaction Taxes ------------------------------------------------------------- The Priceline Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it is currently involve in 30 lawsuits over issues involving the payment of travel transaction taxes. The Company and certain third-party online travel companies ("OTCs") are currently involved in approximately thirty lawsuits, including certified and putative class actions, brought by or against U.S. states, cities and counties over issues involving the payment of travel transaction taxes (e.g., hotel occupancy taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc.) related to the priceline.com business. Generally, the complaints allege, among other things, that the OTCs violated each jurisdiction's respective relevant travel transaction tax ordinance with respect to the charge and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each law. The Company believes that the laws at issue generally do not apply to the services it provides, namely the facilitation of travel reservations, and, therefore, that it does not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed. However, the Company has been involved in this type of litigation for many years, and state and local jurisdictions where these issues have not been resolved could assert that the Company is subject to travel transaction taxes and could seek to collect such taxes, retroactively and/or prospectively. From time to time, the Company has found it expedient to settle claims pending in these matters without conceding that the claims at issue are meritorious or that the claimed taxes are in fact due to be paid. The Company may also settle current or future travel transaction tax claims. On August 5, 2016, the tax appeal court of the state of Hawaii ruled that online travel companies, including the Company, owe General Excise Tax (GET) on the gross amounts collected from consumers on rental car reservations. The tax appeal court rejected the online travel companies' arguments that GET applies only to amounts retained by online travel companies and does not include amounts paid to rental car company suppliers. The online travel companies argued that GET should not apply to gross amounts charged to consumers for rental car reservations pursuant to the 2015 decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court in Travelocity.com, L.P., et al. v. Director of Taxation that GET applies to amounts retained by online travel companies for hotel reservations and not for gross amounts charged to consumers. The Company intends to appeal the tax appeal court decision to the Hawaii appellate courts. The Company must pay the amount of the judgment, which has not yet been entered and which we believe will be immaterial to our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, in order to appeal the decision. The Company said litigation is subject to uncertainty and there could be adverse developments in these pending or future cases and proceedings. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending litigation may encourage the commencement of additional litigation, audit proceedings or other regulatory inquiries and also could result in substantial liabilities for past and/or future bookings, including, among other things, interest, penalties, punitive damages and/or attorneys' fees and costs. An adverse outcome in one or more of these unresolved proceedings could have an adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or cash flows in any given operating period. However, the Company believes that even if the Company were to suffer adverse determinations in the near term in more of the pending proceedings than currently anticipated, given results to date it would not have a material impact on its liquidity or financial condition. As a result of the travel transaction tax litigation generally and other attempts by U.S. jurisdictions to levy similar taxes, the Company has established an accrual (including estimated interest and penalties) for the potential resolution of issues related to travel transaction taxes in the amount of approximately $27 million as of September 30, 2016 and Dec. 31, 2015. The Company's legal expenses for these matters are expensed as incurred and are not reflected in the amount accrued. The actual cost may be less or greater, potentially significantly, than the liabilities recorded. An estimate for a reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount accrued cannot be reasonably made. Priceline Group provides consumers, travel service providers and restaurants with leading travel and restaurant reservation and related services. PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Registration Statement ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER BOOK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRONAI THERAPFUTICS INC., NICK GLOVER, SUKHI JAGPAL, DONALD PARFET, ALBERT CHA, NICOLE ONNETTO, ROBERT PELZER, PETER THOMPSON, JAMES TOPPER, ALVIN VITANGCOL, JEFFERIES LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FFNNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, WEDBUSH SECURITIES INC, and SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC, the Defendants, Case No. 16CIV02473 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 caused by Defendants' false and/or misleading registration statement issued in connection with the Company's July 15, 2015, initial public offering (IPO). According to the Company's IPO prospectus, the company's lead product candidate was PNT2258; a purportedly proprietary formulation of the Company's single-stranded 24-base DNAi oligonucleotide, known as PNT100. The Company claimed in the IPO Prospectus that PNTl00 DNAi targets and interferes with BCL2, an important and validated oncogene known to be dysregulated in many types of cancer. ProNAi also stated in the IPO Prospectus that in December 2014, the Company initiated "Wolverine", an open-label 60 patient Phase 2 trial evaluating PNT2258 for the treatment of third-line relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The Company further stated that it believed the preliminary evidence of efficacy combined with safety and tolerability data related to PNT2258 suggested that PNT2258 had the potential to "change treatment paradigms across a wide of range of oncology indications". The Company's IPO occurred on July 15, 2015. In the IPO, the Company sold 9,315,009 shares of common stock at a public offering price of $17 per share. The Company received net proceeds of approximately $143.6 million from the IPO. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used, in part, to support the clinical and manufacturing activities related to PNT2258. In addition, on July 21 ,2015, immediately prior to the closing of the IPO, all outstanding shares of convertible and redeemable convertible preferred stock converted into 18,361,953 shares of common stock, and on the closing of the IPO, the company issued 750,946 shares of common stock to the holders of its Series C and D redeemable convertible preferred stock in settlement of the cumulative dividends. However, PNT2258 was not all the Company had made it out to be in the IPO. On June 6, 2016, the Company issued a press release announcing interim data from the Wolverine trial. Specifically, the Company disclosed that it observed only modest efficacy from PNT2258. The Company further stated that; it did not view the results as robust enough to justify continued development of the drug in DLBCL. ProNAi also stated that, as a result, it would suspend development of PNT2258 pending further review of the data. On this news, ProNAi's stock price fell $4.3l per share, or 67.5%, to close at $2.07 per share on June 6; 2016, on unusually heavy trading volume. On November 17, 2016, ProNAi's stock price closed at $1.53 per share, a decline of $15.47, or 91% from the IPO price of $17-per share. ProNAi is a clinical stage oncology company that claims to be pioneering a novel class of therapeutics based on the Company's proprietary DNA interference (DNAi) technology platform. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY: & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Teiephone: (310) 201 9150 Facsimile: (310) 201 9160 E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com PULTE HOME: "Parker" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------ in the lawsuit titled SHAUN PARKER GAZZARA, ANA PAULA GAZZARA, HARRY JAMES WHITMAN and MARCIA FAYE WHITMAN, as individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PULTE HOME CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00657-GAP-TBS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of: "all individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or other entities that currently own single family detached residences, condominiums, or townhomes (homes) constructed by Pulte in Florida between April 18, 2006 and April 18, 2016, with a Drainage Plane Exterior Stucco Wall System over Wood Frame and Wood Sheathing (STUCCO SIDING), which contains dissimilar materials, specifically Portland cement-aggregate plaster mix designed for use on exterior surfaces and either steel, aluminum, plastic, vinyl, or other inert materials from that of the Portland cement-aggregate plaster mix, or contain stucco surfaces which are either (a) in excess of 144 contiguous square feet, or (b) are greater than eighteen (18) linear feet in length, or (c) have a surface area with a length to width ratio greater than two and one half to one, or both. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to define the class and the class claims, issues, or defenses, and appoint the undersigned as class counsel. The Court should then appoint a Special Master to supervise repairs and resolutions of claims of class members over time as the repairs are performed. Plaintiffs sue for violations of Florida's building code in stucco siding constructed by Pulte. Pulte constructed 17,119 homes under its name, and another 12,801 under brand names that meet the class definition. The code violations in these Florida residences result in cracked walls requiring extensive replacement. Due to the amounts involved, the large number of claimants, the similar violations in each home, common issues across the class, and the resources of Pulte, a class action is the appropriate vehicle to ensure uniform enforcement of the Florida building code and adequate remedies for all homeowners. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=r09E5VUa The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael C. Sasso, Esq. David F. Tegeler, Esq. SASSO & SASSO, P.A. 1031 West Morse Blvd., Suite 120 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Telephone: (407) 644 7161 Facsimile: (407) 629 6727 E-mail: notice@sasso-law.com msasso@sasso-law.com kdevore@sasso-law.com dtegeler@sasso-law.com - and - John W. Frost, II, Esq. LYDIA S. ZBRZEZNJ, Esq. FROST VAN DEN BOOM, P.A. 395 South Central Avenue Bartow, FL 33830 Telephone: (863) 533-0314 Facsimile: (863) 533 8985 E-mail: jfrost1985@aol.com lmatlock@fvdblaw.com lzbrzeznj@fvdblaw.com - and - Gordon H. Harris, Esq. HARRIS HARRIS BAUERLE ZIEGLER LOPEZ 1201 East Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 472 1555 Facsimile: (407) 843 0444 E-mail: stumpy@hhbzflorida.com Evelyn@hhbzflorida.com - and - Michael Paul Beltran, Esq. BELTRAN LITIGATION, P.A. 405 S. Dale Mabry Hwy. #370 Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 870 3073 E-mail: mike@beltranlitigation.com RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Sued in N.Y. Over Disability Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Cristhian Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv- 06487 (E.D.N.Y., November 22, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to remove architectural and communication barriers in existing stores, denying equal access to disabled persons. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc. operates a furniture retail chain, based in the Northeastern United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com READY PAC: "Carcamo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS PONCE CARCAMO, individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. READY PAC PRODUCE, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC641359 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks relief as a result of the Defendant's unlawful employment policies, practices and procedures, which have resulted in the failure of Defendant to pay Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class all wages due to them. The Defendant allegedly failed to provide Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class with a statutorily mandated meal break, accurate wage statements, all wages due in a timely manner at termination, and maintain records in violation of Labor Code. Ready Pac produces and markets salads, fruits, vegetables, and snacks. The company also packages and distributes Taco Bell brand products. It operates under the brand names Bistro, Ready Snax, Cool Cuts, and elevAteTM. The company distributes in supermarkets and restaurant chains across North America. Ready Pac Produce, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is based in Irwindale, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 212 5124 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609 0807 Facsimile: (818) 609 0892 RIVERDALE CAR: Faces "Pineda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Rafael Pineda and Obdulio Antonio Mata, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Riverdale Car Wash & Detail Center, Inc. d/b/a Riverdale Car Wash, MVP Car Wash, LLC d/b/a MVP Car Wash, Peter Della Mura, and Salvatore Della Mura, Case No. 1:16-cv-09100 (S.D.N.Y., November 22, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a car wash shop located at 309 W 230th St., Bronx, NY 10463. Rafael Pineda and Obdulio Antonio Mata are pro se plaintiffs. ROCHESTER GAS: Fails to Pay Earned Wages and Overtime, Rode Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CRAIG RODE; JEFFREY HAGADORN; and DAVID ORTEGA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP., Case No. 6:16-cv-06755 (W.D.N.Y., November 21, 2016), accuses the Defendant of failing to all pay earned wages and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. is a public utility company that supplies electricity and natural gas to customers in a nine-county region centered on the city of Rochester, New York. The Company is incorporated under the laws of the state of New York and its principal place of business is located in Rochester. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian J. LaClair, Esq. BLITMAN & KING LLP Franklin Center, Suite 300 443 North Franklin Street Syracuse, NY 13204 Telephone: (315) 422-7111 Facsimile: (315) 471-2623 E-mail: bjlaclair@bklawyers.com ROSE TREE CONDOMINIUM: Sued by ADA Realty for Mishandling Issues ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case ADA REALTY TRUST v. ROSE TREE CONDOMINIUM TRUST, ROBERT N. LUSARDI, AS TRUSTEE, BENJAMIN CAGGIANO, AS TRUSTEE, EDWARD APRILE, AS TRUSTEE, AND ROBERT N. LUSARDI, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 16-3294 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., November 16, 2016), the plaintiff, ADA Realty Trust, on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Unit Owners, alleges that the Defendants mishandled various safety and maintenance issues. The action seeks judicial findings and relief relative to a commercial condominium building, owned and operated as a condominium trust. ADA Realty, a real estate trust, maintains an interest in the building and has raised various code violations that have not been addressed by building management. The code violations concern property and casualty exposures, as well as health and wellness issues, the Plaintiff alleges. Rose Tree Condominium Trust is a condominium trust established under G.L. 183A for commercial condominiums, and located in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. The Individual Defendants serve in the Board of Trustees and Building Management for the Rose Tree Condominium Trust. The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Dennehy, Esq. DENNEHY LAW 127 Main Street, Suite 1 Nashua, NH 03060 Telephone: (603) 943-7633 E-mail: jdennehy@dennehylaw.com SCOTT KERNAN: Court Denied Class Certification in "Hicks" --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL J. HICKS, B-80852, the Plaintiff, v. SCOTT KERNAN, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00738-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Charles R. Breyer enter an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss; and 2. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of counsel. The Court said, "In order to state a section 1983 claim for damages against Defendants for the 29 days he spent in SVSP's ASU, Plaintiff must set forth allegations that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's mental health needs. Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to raise an inference that Defendants knew that Plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm to his mental health and disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837, 844-45. Plaintiff does not. There is no allegation or indication that Defendants knew that Plaintiff faced a substantial risk of Defendants are also entitled to dismissal of Plaintiff's section 1983 claims for damages against them in their official capacity. See Will v Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (explaining that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are "persons" under section 1983). After all, it was Plaintiff who requested placement in SVSP's ASU until he could be transferred elsewhere. Plaintiff does not state a plausible section 1983 claim for damages against Defendants for deliberate indifference to his mental health needs at SVSP. That Defendants should have known that Plaintiff could suffer harm to his mental health from a 29-day stay in ASU pending a transfer to another facility at most states a negligence claim not actionable under section 1983. Maintaining a class action requires that (1) the class be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are common questions of law and fact, (3) the representative party's claims or defenses be typical of the class claims or defenses, and (4) the representative party will fairly and adequately protect the class interests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Plaintiff has not met these requirements. His remaining claim for damages in this action -- Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety needs when they approved his transfer to MCSP despite his protests that he had numerous unlisted enemies there -- is a separate and distinct claim from his proposed challenge to CDCR's use of an unfiltered LEXIS inmate law computer program, and he has not shown that he would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed class. See also Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that courts have routinely adhered to general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity)". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Qn0yc9mo SPORTS GRILL: "Fletcher" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned WAYNE FLETCHER, the Plaintiff, v. SPORTS GRILL RESTAURANT, LLC et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 24076-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to conditionally certify and authorize plaintiff to mail and e-mail notice of the lawsuit and consent to become a party Plaintiff form to: "all restaurant workers who performed work for Defendant statewide during the last three years who were not paid proper overtime compensation (i.e. for the hours over 40 during any work week of their employment within the applicable statute of limitations period". The case is a collective action to enforce the overtime provisions of Section 7(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Lead Plaintiff, Wayne Fletcher (Plaintiffs), was a restaurant employee, who worked for Defendant from on or about August 1, 2013 through August 1, 2016. On August 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated alleging that he and the other restaurant employees who worked for Defendants, Sports Grill Restaurant, LLC stores, statewide, were not properly paid overtime wages. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that he and the other covered restaurant employees were subject to a companywide policy whereby they were not paid overtime (Defendant improperly paid overtime wages in cash). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mN3GCNU9 The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com - and - Andrew S. Yagoda, Esq. ANDREW S. YAGODA, P.A. 232 Andalusia Ave Ste 201 Coral Gables, FL 33134-5914 Telephone: 305 441 9958 Facsimile: 305 442 9967 E-mail: ayagoda@yagodalaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Alexander Lynch Wildman, Esq. DANIELS, RODRIGUEZ, BERKELEY, DANIELS AND CRUZ, P.A. 4000 Ponce De Leon Blvd. Suite 800 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Telephone: (585) 315 2641 E-mail: awildman@drbdc-law.com - and - Lorne Ethan, Esq. Berkeley Daniels Kashtan 4000 Ponce De Leon Boulevard Suite 800 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Telephone: 305 448 7988 Facsimile: 305 448 7978 E-mail: lberkeley@dkdr.com SSC LEXINGTON: "Allen" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled CYNTHIA ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. SSC LEXINGTON OPERATING COMPANY LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, d/b/a BRIAN CENTER NURSING CARE/LEXINGTON, the Defendant, Case No 1:16-cv-01080-WO-JEP. (M.D. N.Car.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for a conditional class defined as: "all current and former Nurses or other job titles performing similar job duties employed by BRIAN CENTER NURSING CARE/LEXINGTON at any time during the last three years; 2. approving the Court-Authorized Notice and Consent to Sue form; 3. compelling Defendant SSC Lexington Operating Company LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, d/b/a Brian Center Nursing Care/Lexington (Defendant or Brian Center) to produce within 14 days of the Order granting this Motion, the full name, all known addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of the potential class members; 4. permitting Plaintiff's Counsel to send, within 14 days of receipt of the Class list from Defendant, the Court- authorized Notice and Consent to Sue form via U.S. Mail and electronic mail to putative Class members; 5. requiring Defendant post a copy of the Court-authorized Notice in its facility; 6. allowing 60 days for putative Class members to return their Consent to Sue form to Plaintiff's Counsel for filing with the Court; and 7. appointing the counsel, Johnson Becker, PLLC and Elliot Morgan Parsonage, PLLC as counsel for members of the putative Class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jwx6nM8e The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly E. Nephew, Esq. Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436 1800 Facsimile: (612) 436 1801 E-mail: mnephew@johnsonbecker.com jrusch@johnsonbecker.com - and - Benjamin P. Winikoff, Esq. ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, PLLC 426 Old Salem Road Winston Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: (336) 724 2828 Facsimile: (336) 724 3335 E-mail: bpwinikoff@emplawfirm.com SUBWAY 39077: Judge Scola Denied FLSA Class Cert. Bid in "Aguiar" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Yirandi Aguiar, and others, the Plaintiffs, v. Subway 39077, Inc., Timothy E. Johnson, and others, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23399-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Robert N. Scola, Jr. entered an order denying Plaintiff Yirandi Aguiar motion for certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA). The Court declines to certify the following FLSA class of: "Store Managers working at approximately thirty-eight Subway franchises owned and operated by Johnson". The Court said, "Aguiar's proposed collective action faces a number of significant and fatal hurdles. First, Aguiar purports to create a class of individuals employed or formerly employed by approximately thirty-eight separate, non-party corporate entities. Aguiar cites no precedent that would allow her and the newly added plaintiffs, Leon and Smith, to initiate a collective action against three corporate defendants -- Subways 39077, 1405, and 5142 -- that had no employment relationship with the putative plaintiffs. Second, Aguiar has failed to show the existence of any employees -- other than ones already involved in this or other actions -- who wish to opt in to this action. These two factors alone defeat Aguiar's request to certify a collective action. Yet, even if Aguiar were to somehow clear these two hurdles, the Court does not consider the putative plaintiffs to be similarly situated under the lenient standards applicable here. The Court's decision in Laos, upon which Aguiar partly relies in support of her request for certification, remains instructive on this point. There, this Court granted conditional certification of a collective action against two car dealerships, owned and operated by the same defendant. The plaintiff in Laos, aside from presenting evidence of other employees who wished to opt in, demonstrated: (1) he worked at one dealership, but he and the other putative plaintiffs were authorized to sell vehicles at both dealerships; (2) the two dealerships were located on one contiguous lot; (3) a single payroll department paid employees at both dealerships; and (4) the same individual supervised both dealerships. These facts allowed the court to find that the putative plaintiffs were similarly situated for the purposes of the FLSA lawsuit. Here, however, each plaintiff and putative plaintiff was employed at a separate corporate entity. Aguiar has not shown and has not alleged that she or the other employees were authorized to sell or make sandwiches at any of the other thirty- eight Subway franchises. These other franchises are not located on one property -- instead, they are spread throughout a vast geographic area. The affidavits attached to the motion include no information regarding a joint payroll department and no information specifying who supervised the Store Managers". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=foF4CQ0s SYMPHONY DIAGNOSTIC: Reddick Seeks Certification of Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled GODFREY JAYSON REDDICK, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SYMPHONY DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES NO. 1, INC., d/b/a/ MOBILEXUSA, LLC, AMERICAN DIAGNOSTICS SERVICES, INC., and TRIDENTUSA MOBILE CLINICAL SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09959 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional and class certification and request for discovery on certification issues. The case is class and collective action brought by Plaintiff Godfrey Jayson Reddick to redress Defendants' systematic, improper and willful failure to pay wages and overtime compensation to Plaintiff and other similarly-situated individuals as required by both federal and Illinois law. Plaintiff is filing the motion under guidance from the decision in Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 2016 WL 4593825 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2016) to avoid a mootness issue that may result from the entry of an Order granting Defendants leave to deposit funds with the Court's registry intended for the Named Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asks that the motion be entered and continued and he be allowed to conduct necessary collective and class discovery to support this motion. The Plaintiff's proposed collective class pursuant for Fair labor Standards Act is defined as: "all individuals who were employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as mobile ultrasound technologists, sonographers, ultrasound technicians or any other similarly- titled position at any time from three (3) years prior to the filing of this action to the entry of judgement in this action who give their consent, in writing, to become party plaintiffs (the FLSA Class)". The Plaintiff's proposed class pursuant to Illinois Minimum Wage Law is d efined as: "all individuals who were employed, or are currently employed, by Defendants as mobile ultrasound technologists, sonographers, ultrasound technicians or any other similarly- titled position in the State of Illinois at any time from three years prior to the filing of this action to the entry of judgment". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eGqiXnvk The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. Stephan Zouras, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233 1550 Facsimile: (312) 233 1560 E-mail: www.stephanzouras.com SYSCO GUEST: Gorrs Motels Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. SYSCO GUEST SUPPLY, LLC, a Delaware corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01911 (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: a. taking the motion under submission and deferring further activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23 scheduling order, or alternatively; b. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Mzf0SWL4 The Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plaines, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358 5345 Facsimile: (212) 571 0284 E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com T & B MANAGEMENT: Chavez, et al. Seek Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled VANESSA CHAVEZ, AMY BERLAK, BROOKE GRAHAM, and MELISSA VARNER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. T & B MANAGEMENT, LLC and T & B CONCEPTS OF HICKORY, LLC, each d/b/a HICKORY TAVERN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01019-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order: (1) conditionally certifying a class of similarly situated former and current tipped server and bartender employees of defendants T & B Management, LLC and T & B Concepts of Hickory, LLC, each d/b/a Hickory Tavern, (collectively "Hickory Tavern") restaurants throughout North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, and any other state in which a Hickory Tavern restaurant is located since three (3) years prior to the date of filing of Plaintiffs' Complaint in this action on August 1, 2016; (2) compelling Hickory Tavern to provide Plaintiffs with the names, last known addresses, cellular telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of each putative member employee in a mail merge type program like Excel; and (3) approving and authorizing the issuance of Plaintiffs' proposed notice of conditional certification to all putative class members in the manner requested. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9vcJzd3S The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Roberts, III, Esq. Paul R. Dickinson, Jr., Esq. LEWIS & ROBERTS, PLLC 3700 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 410 (27612) P. O. Box 17529 Raleigh, NC 27619-7529 Telephone: (919) 981 0191 Facsimile: (919) 981 0199 E-mail: jar@lewis-roberts.com prd@lewis-roberts.com TEXAS BRINE: Sanchez Seeks Certification of Land Owners Class ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned DIANNE SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. TEXAS BRINE, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:12-cv-02059-JCZ-MBN (E.D. La.), moves the Court to certify a class defined as: All land owners who own land, but who did not reside on that land, that is within a 2 mile radius of the sinkhole which includes all land within the following areas: All of Sections 36, 35, 34, 39, 40, 41, 48, 47 and 46. NE 1/4 Sec 51 N 1/2 Sec 52 NW 1/4 Sec 53 SW 1/4 Sec 33 W 1/2 Sec 42 NW 1/4 Sec 45 SE 1/4 Sec 37 E 1/2 Sec 38 NE l/4 Sec 49 SE 1/4 Sec 27 S 1/2 Sec 28 SW 1/4 See 29 A Anyone that previously settled with Texas Brine is specifically excluded from the class. In their memorandum filed in support of the Motion, Dianne Sanchez, et al., contend that the claims of the class representatives are typical of the claims of members of the putative class. The proposed class representatives are Michael Landry, Mary Russo, Leah Payne, and Bryan Stephen Woodward. The proposed class representatives are Louisiana residents or businesses, who own non-residential property in the area impacted by the sinkhole in question and who are not members of the settlement class certified by this court on April 8, 2014 in "Leblanc et al v. Texas Brine Co., LLC et al., " 2:12-cv-02069-JCZ-MBN, Eastern District of Louisiana. A copy of the Memorandum is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SKs1dua7 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Calvin C. Fayard, Jr., Esq. FAYARD & HONEYCUTT 519 Florida Ave., SW Denham Springs, LA 70726 Telephone: (225) 664-4193 E-mail: calvinfayard@fayardlaw.com - and - Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq. MARTZELL, BICKFORD, & CENTOLA 338 Lafayette Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581-9065 Facsimile: (504) 581-7635 E-mail: lcentola@mbfirm.com - and - Matthew B. Moreland, Esq. BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC 106 W. Seventh St. Reserve, LA 70084 Telephone: (985) 536-1186 Facsimile: (985) 536-6445 E-mail: mmoreland@becnellaw.com - and - Richard Perque, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD PERQUE LLC 700 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 524-3306 Facsimile: (504) 529-4179 E-mail: richard@perquelaw.com TEAM WOW: "Nelson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- AARON NELSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. TEAM WOW, LLC, MOUNTAINSIDE PIZZA, INC., PRIMA PIZZA, INC. and LONGHORN PIZZA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02825 (D. Col., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Colorado Minimum Wage of Workers Act (CMWWA). According to the complaint, the Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to Defendants' customers. Instead of reimbursing their delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the minimum wage during some or all workweeks. Defendants Team Wow, LLC, Mountainside Pizza, Inc., Prima Pizza, Inc. and Longhorn Pizza, Inc. together operate approximately 37 Domino's Pizza stores in Colorado, California and Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack D. McInnes, Esq. PAUL McINNES LLP 601 Walnut, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 981 8100 Facsimile: (816) 981 8101 E-mail: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com - and - Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997 9150 Facsimile: (314) 997 9170 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com TIMELINE LOGISTICS: Sauls Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDDIE SAULS on behalf of herself, individually and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. TIMELINE LOGISTICS INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-03416 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, taxable costs of court, and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Defendant mischaracterized Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as independent contractors. This mischaracterization was a deliberate scheme of depriving Plaintiff and similarly employees of their rightfully owed overtime wages. To create the appearance of an independent contractor relationship, defendant would create weekly "invoices", mark them "paid" and pay Plaintiffs according to the invoices. These invoices would not list all of the hours worked by Plaintiffs, nor would they list Plaintiff's hourly rate of pay. Plaintiff was paid $8.48 per hour but the invoices were generated to conceal his hourly rate and shield the true nature of the employer-employee relationship. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated Driver's Helpers were denied time and a half for overtime hours worked above 40 per week. Timeline Logistics provides delivery and courier services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Telephone: (832) 778 8182 Facsimile: (832) 778 8353 E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com TINDER INC: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over "Anti-American" Pricing ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALLAN CANDELORE, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TINDER, INC.; and DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. BC641358 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks actual and statutory damages as a result Tinder's anti-American pricing, pursuant to Unruh Civil Rights Act. According to the complaint, Tinder charged and continues to charge consumers different prices for its Tinder Plus service based on the consumers' citizenship, primary language, or immigration status, with United States citizens being charged more than all other customers. For example, Tinder charges United States citizens as much as $19.99 per month for Tinder Plus, but charges customers who are citizens of other countries as little as $2.99 per month for the same thing -- no matter the customers' gross income, disposable income, or net worth. Tinder also charges U.S. citizens the highest price for Tinder Plus even though the U.S. national debt of over $19,500,000,000.00 -- and counting -- dwarfs the national debt of any other country, with the share of this debt for each Tinder Plus customer who is a U.S. citizen being over $61,000, and the share for each Tinder Plus customer who is a U.S. citizen and a taxpayer being over $ 166,000. Defendant Tinder owns and operates the wildly successful online matchmaking application eponymously named "Tinder". The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfred G. Rava, Esq. RAVA LAW FIRM 3667 Voltaire Street San Diego, CA 92106 Telephone: (619) 238 1993 Facsimile: (619) 374 7288 E-mail: alrava@cox.net U.S. BANK: "Smith" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JEREMY SMITH, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-21146-UU (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for order certifying a class of: "any person who had a FHA-insured loan for which (1) the Date of the Note is within a period beginning on June 1, 1996 and ending on January 20, 2015; (2) U.S. Bank, as of the date the total amount due on the loan was brought to zero, was the Lender, Mortgagee, or otherwise held legal title to the Note; (3) U.S. Bank collected interest for any period after the total amount due on the loan was brought to zero (i.e., U.S. Bank collected "post-payment interest"); and (4) U.S. Bank collected post-payment interest during the applicable statute of limitations period". The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Smith as the class representative and Smith's counsel as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gx828STK The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett M. Amron, Esq. Jeremy S. Korch, Esq. BAST AMRON, LLP One Southeast Third Ave Ste 1400 Miami, FL 33131 E-mail: bamron@bastamron.com jkorch@bastamron.com - and - Michael B. Terry, Esq. Steven J. Rosenwasser, Esq. Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq. Fredric J. Bold, Jr. BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 W Peachtree St NW Ste 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 E-mail: terry@bmelaw.com rosenwasser@bmelaw.com ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com bold@bmelaw.com - and - Kevin E. Epps, Esq. Adam L. Hoipkemier EPPS, HOLLOWAY, DELOACH & HOIPKEMIER, LLC 1220 Langford Dr Bldg 200 Ste 101 Watkinsville, GA 30677 E-mail: kevin@ehdlaw.com adam@ehdlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul F. Hancock, Esq. Olivia Kelman, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 200 S Biscayne Blvd Ste 3900 Miami, FL 33131-2399 E-mail: paul.hancock@klgates.com olivia.kelman@klgates.com - and - Christopher T. Shaheen, Esq. Eric Sherman, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 50 S Sixth St Ste 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498 E-mail: shaheen.chris@dorsey.com sherman.eric@dorsey.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Metter" Suit Seeks to Scrap Cancellation Fee ---------------------------------------------------------------- JULIAN METTER, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-06652-EDL (N.D. Cal., November 11, 2016), alleges that Uber's automatic cancellation fees, and entire cancellation fee practices, are arbitrarily and unfairly imposed to the sole detriment of Riders (but to the benefit of Uber) and therefore must be stopped. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. operates a ride-sharing business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Cirsch, Esq. Robert K. Friedl, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-4811 Fax: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Lee.Cirsch@capstonelawyers.com Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com - and - Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 6220 West Third Street, #115 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Phone: (323) 424-4194 E-mail: francisflynn@gmail.com UNITED RECOVERY: Kroell May Refile Bid to Certify, Court Rules -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on November 15, 2016, in the case titled Michael Kroell v. United Recovery Systems, LP, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10524 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. The minute entry states that: -- The motion for class certification is denied without prejudice and the motion to enter and continue the motion for class certification is denied as moot. No appearance on the motions is required; -- The Court does not accept prophylactic class certification motions in light of Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) and Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015); and -- If the Plaintiff is prepared to proceed on the motion as briefed, the Plaintiff may refile it; alternatively, the motion may be refiled at any point that Plaintiff is prepared to proceed with substantive briefing. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iFH4EPN4 UNITED STATES: Seeks Until Nov. 30 to File Response in "Reyes" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MANUEL REYES, the Movant. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the Respondent, Case No. 1:16-cv-22877-JAL (S.D. Fla.), the United States moves the Court for a two-week extension of time within which to file its response to Movant Manuel Reyes' amended motion to vacate his sentence. The motion is unopposed. The United States response was due November 14, 2016. The government's counsel explained that he is preparing to leave the U.S. Attorney's office -- permanently -- and has fallen behind in attempting to meet a number of deadlines. Furthermore, this particular matter raises legal issues -- whether Hobbs Act conspiracy is a crime of violence in light of recent case law -- requiring consultation with various components of the Department to ensure that our position is legally consistent and correct. He noted that counsel for Mr. Reyes has graciously agreed to a short continuance until November 30th to file the response. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wB1bVMEF The Respondent is represented by: Wilfredo Fernandez, Esq. ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY 99 N.E. 4th Street, 4th Floor Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 961 9184 UNO CONSTRUCTION: "Rosario" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Moises Rosario, Gabriel Rincon, Froylan Romero, Yoquel Vargas, and Juan Aquino, on behalf of themselves and all others persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Uno Construction Corp., Walid Halak, and Mohammad Halak, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 06413 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages for overtime work and liquidated damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs any overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, failed to supply written notice providing information required by the Wage Theft Prevention Act; and failed to supply weekly records. UNO Construction was formerly known as Scarsdale Construction Ltd. As a result of its acquisition by UNO Group Ltd., the name of Scarsdale Construction Ltd. was changed. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563 9884 E-mail: michael@samuellandstein.com VMWARE INC: Suits Arising From Dell Acquisition Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Two lawsuits alleging breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the Dell Acquisition remains pending, according to VMware, Inc.'s November 7, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. On November 17, 2015, Francis M. Ford, a VMware Class A stockholder, filed an action in the Delaware Chancery Court against certain current and former VMware directors, among others, alleging that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Dell Acquisition, and the proposed issuance of tracking stock that is intended to track the performance of VMware. The plaintiff does not assert claims directly against VMware, but purports to bring class claims on behalf of other VMware Class A stockholders and derivative claims on behalf of VMware. In addition, on November 10, 2015, David Jacobs, also a VMware stockholder, filed an action in Massachusetts Superior Court against, among others, EMC and four directors who serve on both the EMC board and the VMware board, setting forth similar allegations to those in the Ford matter. While VMware does not believe that the cases represent material adverse exposures, no assurances can be given that the litigation will not have any adverse consequences for the company or the directors named in the suits. VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: $9-Mil. Settlement Paid in Third Quarter --------------------------------------------------------------- Vocera Communications, Inc.'s $9 million settlement resolving a consolidated securities litigation was funded by its insurance carriers and paid during this quarter, according to the Company's November 7, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. On August 1 and 21, 2013, two putative securities class action suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers, its board of directors, a former director and the underwriters for the Company's initial public offering. On November 20, 2013, the court consolidated the actions as In re Vocera Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on September 19, 2014. The consolidated complaint named certain current and former officers and directors and the underwriters for the Company's initial public offering and secondary offering and alleges claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false and materially misleading statements and omissions in the registration statement for the Company's initial public offering and secondary offering and in communications regarding its business and financial results. The suit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between March 28, 2012 and May 2, 2013, and sought compensatory damages, rescission, fees and costs, as well as other relief. On November 3, 2014 Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On February 11, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims, but denied the motion as to the Exchange Act claims, allowing the matter to proceed on that basis. On April 27, 2015 Defendants filed answers to the consolidated complaint. A mediation in October 2015 resulted in an agreement in principle to settle the suit. On March 4, 2016, the Court issued an order granting Lead Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement, which called for payment of $9 million, was funded entirely and directly by the Company's insurance carriers and paid during the three months ended September 30, 2016. WELLS FARGO: "Miller" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ANNA MILLER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-21145-UU (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "any person who had a FHA-insured loan for which (1) the Date of the Note is within a period beginning on June 1, 1996 and ending on January 20, 2015; (2) U.S. Bank, as of the date the total amount due on the loan was brought to zero, was the Lender, Mortgagee, or otherwise held legal title to the Note; (3) U.S. Bank collected interest for any period after the total amount due on the loan was brought to zero (i.e., U.S. Bank collected "post-payment interest"); and (4) U.S. Bank collected post-payment interest during the applicable statute of limitations period". The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint miller as the class representative and Miller's counsel as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=O5VIK7ml The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brett M. Amron, Esq. Jeremy S. Korch, Esq. BAST AMRON, LLP One Southeast Third Ave Ste 1400 Miami, FL 33131 E-mail: bamron@bastamron.com jkorch@bastamron.com - and - Michael B. Terry, Esq. Steven J. Rosenwasser, Esq. Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq. Fredric J. Bold, Jr. BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 W Peachtree St NW Ste 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 E-mail: terry@bmelaw.com rosenwasser@bmelaw.com ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com bold@bmelaw.com - and - Kevin E. Epps, Esq. Adam L. Hoipkemier EPPS, HOLLOWAY, DELOACH & HOIPKEMIER, LLC 1220 Langford Dr Bldg 200 Ste 101 Watkinsville, GA 30677 E-mail: kevin@ehdlaw.com adam@ehdlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: R. Eric Bilik, Esq. Sara F. Holladay-Tobias, Esq. Emily Y. Rottmann, Esq. Daniel M. Mahfood, Esq. McGuireWoods LLP 50 N Laura St, Ste 3300 Jacksonville, FL 32202 E-mail: ebilik@mcguirewoods.com stobias@mcguirewoods.com erottmann@mcguirewoods.com dmahfood@mcguirewoods.com - and - K. Issac deVyver, Esq. Karla L. Johnson, Esq. McGuire Woods LLP 625 Liberty Ave, 23rd Fl Pittsburgh, PA 15222 E-mail: kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com kjohnson@mcguirewoods.com WEST COAST TRUCKING: "Perez" Suit Alleges Overtime Wage Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- AGUSTIN PEREZ and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. WEST COAST TRUCKING CORP., MANUEL QUINTERO, Case No. 1:16-cv-24852-MGC (S.D. Fla., November 21, 2016), alleges overtime wage violations pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. West Coast Trucking Corp. is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida. Manuel Quintero is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Defendant Corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com WHATABURGER RESTAURANTS: Zepeda Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA ZEPEDA, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WHATABURGER RESTAURANTS LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01166-FB (W.D. Tex., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from the Defendant, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant has allegedly violated the FLSA by failing to pay Zepeda overtime for each hour she worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. Accordingly, Zepeda brings this collective action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated to recover unpaid wages and related damages under Section 216(b) of the FLSA. Whataburger is an American privately held regional fast food restaurant chain, based in San Antonio, Texas, that specializes in hamburgers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A. Goldberg, Esq. Daryl J. Sinkule, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY A. GOLDBERG 15303 Huebner Road, Building 13 San Antonio, TX 78248 Telephone: (210) 690 2200 Facsimile: (210) 690 0438 E-mail: jeff@jeffreygoldberglaw.com WILLIS TOWERS: Consolidated Suit Over Merger Has Been Closed ------------------------------------------------------------ Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the consolidated lawsuit challenging the merger of Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company and Towers Watson & Co. has been closed. Five putative class action complaints challenging the Merger were filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, captioned New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11270-CB (filed on July 9, 2015), Stein v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11271-CB (filed on July 9, 2015), City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 11275-CB (filed on July 10, 2015), Cordell v. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 11358-CB (filed on July 31, 2015), and Mills v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11423-CB (filed on August 24, 2015). The Stein action was voluntarily dismissed on July 28, 2015. These complaints were filed by purported stockholders of Towers Watson on behalf of a putative class comprised of all Towers Watson stockholders. The complaints sought, among other things, to enjoin the Merger, and generally alleged that Towers Watson's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Towers Watson stockholders by agreeing to merge Towers Watson with Willis through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, and by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices. The complaints also alleged that Willis and the Merger Sub formed for purposes of consummating the Merger aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Towers Watson directors. On August 17, 2015, the court consolidated the New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund, City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund, and Cordell actions (the Mills action had not yet been filed) and any other actions then pending or thereafter filed arising out of the same issues of fact under the caption In re Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11270-CB. On September 9, 2015, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action and in Mills filed a consolidated amended complaint, which, among other things, added claims for alleged misstatements and omissions from a preliminary proxy statement and prospectus for the Merger dated August 27, 2015. On September 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for a preliminary injunction, which motions plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew on October 19, 2015. On December 14, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On April 1, 2016, the court consolidated the Mills action into the consolidated action. On April 18, 2016, the court dismissed the consolidated action as moot, set a briefing schedule for plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' fee and expense application for June 28, 2016. On April 27, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, requesting an aggregate fee and expense award of at least $1.7 million. On June 8, 2016, defendants filed their opposition to the petition. After negotiations, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the petition for a payment of $250,000 to plaintiffs' counsel by the Company. On July 29, 2016, the court entered a proposed order submitted by the parties closing the consolidated action for all purposes. About Willis Towers Willis Towers Watson is a global advisory, broking and solutions company that helps clients around the world turn risk into a path for growth. The Company provides both specialized risk management advisory, broking and consulting services on a global basis to clients engaged in specific industrial and commercial activities, and services to small, medium and large corporations through its retail operations. WILLIS TOWERS: Final Approval Hearing of Stanford Deal on Jan. 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hearing to consider final approval of the settlement agreement resolving the litigation relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group is scheduled for January 20, 2017, according to Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company's November 7, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. The Company has been named as a defendant in 15 similar lawsuits relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group ('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these actions generally allege that the defendants actively and materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford client investors. The complaints further allege that these letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit. The 15 actions are as follows: * Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA'). On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green, Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N ('Roland'). On August 31, 2011, the court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with prejudice under SLUSA. On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i) dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011, the court entered a final judgment in the action. On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice, et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N, which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants- appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18, 2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's reversal in Troice. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted our petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the Supreme Court heard oral argument on Oct. 7, 2013. On February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision. On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order. On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs' request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss, but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order; (b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on April 20, 2015. On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion. On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions entered into a settlement in principle that is described in more detail below. * Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085, was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred, for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML'). The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni. On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. * Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed individually and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice. * Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300 million, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which motion was denied by the court on September 16, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action discussed below, and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert. * Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion to dismiss decisions in the Troice action discussed above and the Janvey action discussed below. Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion. * Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585, was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors, individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the court's stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the court remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court and denied the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On Sept. 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague. * MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately $4 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the parties stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County)) and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in accordance with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague (discussed above)), which stipulation was 'so ordered' by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur. * Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) alleging violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1) Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million; (2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5 million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of 11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $12.5 million. On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases to the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified the JPML of the pendency of these related actions. On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying and administratively closing that action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20, 2013, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer of the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go forward. On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria. On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively, remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015 and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. We believe the dismissals were in error and that appeals are likely to be reinstated. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or Barbar. On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21, 2015, the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala- Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by the court. * Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S. Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii) on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege claims under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of collective losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion. On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5 order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the court granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the December 5 order. on March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20, 2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey scheduling order. On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions entered into a settlement in principle that is described in more detail below. * Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 201652115, was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford investor against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate in Texas state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages of less than $100,000, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks damages in excess of $1 million. The defendants have not yet responded to the amended complaint in Martin. * Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:16-cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more than 300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $135 million, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Abel. The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit. In the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of factors as required by accounting standards. On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in principle for $120 million relating to this litigation, and we have therefore increased our provisions by $50 million. Further details on this settlement in principle are given below. The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford, which may not be given. Therefore, the ultimate resolution of these matters may differ from the amount provided for. The Company continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Settlement. On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet, relating to the Stanford litigation matter. The Company agreed to the Settlement Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense and uncertainty of further litigation. In particular, if the settlement and the related bar orders described below are approved by the Court and become effective, the Company (a newly- combined firm) would be able to conduct itself with the bar orders' protection from the continued overhang of matters alleged to have occurred approximately a decade ago. Further, the Settlement Term Sheet provided that the parties understood and agreed that there was no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company. The Company expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the Stanford litigation. Specifically, the parties to the Settlement Term Sheet are Ralph S. Janvey (in his capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the 'Receiver') for The Stanford Financial Group and its affiliated entities in receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')), the Official Stanford Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz, Paula Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal, Daniel Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A. (collectively, 'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc. and Willis of Colorado, Inc. (collectively, 'Defendants'), on the other hand. Under the terms of the Settlement Term Sheet, the parties agreed in principle to settle and dismiss the Janvey and Troice actions (collectively, the 'Actions') and all current or future claims arising from or related to Stanford. If the settlement, including the bar orders described below, is approved by the Court and is not subject to further appeal, Willis North America Inc. will make a one-time cash payment of $120 million to the Receiver to be distributed to all Stanford investors who have claims recognized by the Receiver pursuant to the distribution plan in place at the time the payment is made. The Settlement Term Sheet also provided the parties' agreement to seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not. The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all Stanford- related litigation described above, and not just the Actions, including any pending matters and any actions that may be brought in the future. Final Court approval of these bar orders is a condition of the settlement. On or about August 31, 2016, the parties to the settlement signed a formal Settlement Agreement memorializing the terms of the settlement as originally set forth in the Settlement Term Sheet. On September 7, 2016, the plaintiffs in the Troice and Janvey actions filed with the Court a motion to approve the settlement. On October 19, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. A hearing to consider final approval of the settlement is scheduled for January 20, 2017. The Actions are stayed pending final approval of the settlement. The Company says the timing of any final decision is subject to the discretion of the Court and any appeal, and the Court may decide not to approve the settlement. About Willis Towers Willis Towers Watson is a global advisory, broking and solutions company that helps clients around the world turn risk into a path for growth. The Company provides both specialized risk management advisory, broking and consulting services on a global basis to clients engaged in specific industrial and commercial activities, and services to small, medium and large corporations through its retail operations. WILLIS TOWERS: Meriter Suit vs. TWDE Remains Pending in Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit filed by Meriter Health Services against a subsidiary of Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company remains pending, according to the Company's November 7, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. On January 6, 2015, Meriter Health Services, Inc. ('Meriter'), plan sponsor of the Meriter Health Services Employee Retirement Plan (the 'Plan') filed a complaint in Wisconsin state court against Towers Watson Delaware Inc. ('TWDE'), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and against its former lawyers, individual actuaries, and insurers. In the Third Amended Complaint, served on April 12, 2016, Meriter alleges that Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc. ('TPFC') and Davis, Conder, Enderle & Sloan, Inc. ('DCES'), and other entities and individuals, including Meriter's former lawyers, acted negligently concerning the benefits consulting advice provided to Meriter, including TPFC and the lawyers' involvement in the Plan design and drafting of the Plan document in 1987 by TPFC, and DCES and the lawyers' Plan review, Plan redesign, Plan amendment, and drafting of ERISA section 204(h) notices in the early 2000s. Additionally, Meriter asserts that TPFC, DCES, and the individual actuary defendants breached alleged fiduciary duties to advise Meriter regarding the competency of Meriter's then ERISA counsel. Meriter also has asserted causes of action for contribution, indemnity, and equitable subrogation related to amounts paid to settle a class action lawsuit related to the Plan that was filed by Plan participants against Meriter in 2010, alleging a number of ERISA violations and related claims. Meriter settled that lawsuit in 2015 for $82 million. Meriter seeks damages in the amount of approximately $190 million, which includes amounts it claims to have paid to settle and defend the class action litigation, and amounts it claims to have incurred as a result of improper plan design. Meriter seeks to recover these alleged damages from TWDE and the other defendants. On January 12, 2016, TWDE and the other defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of Meriter's negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims. On April 18, 2016, TWDE and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the contribution, indemnification, and equitable subrogation claims. On May 4, 2016, the parties appeared for oral argument on the motion for partial summary judgment, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court dismissed the fiduciary duty claims, but not the negligence claims. Meriter subsequently moved for reconsideration of the dismissal of its breach of fiduciary duty claims, which was denied as to TWDE on August 16, 2016. On June 22, 2016, the court granted in part TWDE's motion to dismiss, and dismissed the contribution and equitable subrogation claims, but denied the motion as to Meriter's indemnification claim without prejudice to the right of any defendant to raise the issue again by later motion. The Company said based on all of the information to date, and given the stage of the matter, TWDE is currently unable to provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. TWDE disputes the allegations, and intends to defend the matter vigorously. About Willis Towers Willis Towers Watson is a global advisory, broking and solutions company that helps clients around the world turn risk into a path for growth. The Company provides both specialized risk management advisory, broking and consulting services on a global basis to clients engaged in specific industrial and commercial activities, and services to small, medium and large corporations through its retail operations. WILLIS TOWERS: Unit May Seek Summary Judgment in "Sanchez" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles has agreed that Towers Perrin may file a motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit initiated by Elma Sanchez, et al., which will be heard on February 3, 2017, Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, On August 6, 2013, three individual plaintiffs (Elma Sanchez, et al.) filed a putative class action suit against the California Public Employees' Retirement System ('CalPERS') in Los Angeles County Superior Court. On January 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added as defendants several members of CalPERS' Board of Administration and three Legacy Towers Watson entities, Towers Watson & Co., Towers Perrin, and Tillinghast- Towers Perrin ('Towers Perrin'). Plaintiffs' claims all relate to a self-funded, non-profit Long Term Care Program that CalPERS established in 1995 (the 'LTC Program'). Plaintiffs' claims seek unspecified damages allegedly resulting from CalPERS' 2012 decision to implement in 2015 and 2016 an 85 percent increase in the premium rates of certain of the long term care policies it issued between 1995 and 2004 (the '85% Increase'). The amended complaint alleges claims against CalPERS for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. It also includes a single cause of action against Towers Perrin for professional negligence relating to actuarial services Towers Perrin provided to CalPERS relating to the LTC Program between 1995 and 2004. Plaintiffs principally allege that CalPERS mismanaged the LTC Program and its investment assets in multiple respects and breached its contractual and fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and other class members by impermissibly imposing the 85% Increase to make up for investment losses. Plaintiffs also allege that Towers Perrin recommended inadequate initial premium rates at the outset of the LTC Program and used unspecified inappropriate assumptions in its annual valuations for CalPERS. Plaintiffs claim that Towers Perrin's allegedly negligent acts and omissions, prior to the end of its retainer in 2004, contributed to the need for the 85% Increase. In May 2014, the court denied the motions to dismiss filed by CalPERS and Towers Perrin addressed to the sufficiency of the complaint. On January 28, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The certified class as currently defined includes those long term care policy holders whose policies were "subject to" the 85% Increase. The court thereafter set an October 2, 2017 trial date. In May 2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. The court has agreed that Towers Perrin may file a motion for summary judgment which will be heard on February 3, 2017. The court has also agreed to consider potential motions by Towers Perrin and CalPERS to decertify or modify the class. To date, the plaintiffs have not identified any amount of damages or any basis for calculating damages they are seeking against defendants, including Towers Perrin. For this reason and given the stage of the proceedings, the Company is currently unable to provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously. About Willis Towers Willis Towers Watson is a global advisory, broking and solutions company that helps clients around the world turn risk into a path for growth. The Company provides both specialized risk management advisory, broking and consulting services on a global basis to clients engaged in specific industrial and commercial activities, and services to small, medium and large corporations through its retail operations. YAHOO! INC: "Pawlik" Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------ David Pawlik, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Yahoo!, Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09011 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks redress for Yahoo's unlawful and negligent disclosure of millions of users' accounts, which included users' confidential personal information, in violation of New York General Business Law and common law. The Defendant allegedly failed to fulfill its legal duty to protect Yahoo users' personal identifying information (PII) which was stored in its systems. Yahoo recklessly and negligently disregarded is obligations to safeguard users' PII which resulted in a massive data breach in late 2014. Yahoo Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. Yahoo was founded by Jerry Yang and David Filo in January 1994 and was incorporated on March 2, 1995. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP. 445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298 3281 Facsimile: (914) 908 6709 E-mail: Jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com gblankinship@fbfglaw.com - and - ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. Daniel S. Robinson, Esq. Wesley K. Polischuk, Esq. Genevieve R. Micek, Esq. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720 1288 Facsimile: (949) 720 1292 E-mail: drobinson@robinsonfirm.com wpolischuk@robinsonfirm.com ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Awaits Final OK of "Reyes" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zions Bancorporation is awaiting final approval of the settlement agreement it entered into to resolve the class action case titled Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et al., according to the Company's November 7, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. As of September 30, 2016, the Company said it is subject to a class action case, Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et al., which was brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in early 2010. This case relates to payment processing services provided by Modern Payments, a small subsidiary of Zions, to ten of its customers that allegedly engaged in wrongful telemarketing practices. The plaintiff has been seeking a trebled monetary award under the federal RICO Act. During the second quarter of 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the case for $37.50 million to $37.75 million, (with the amount within that range dependent upon the outcome of certain contingencies). A definitive settlement agreement on those terms was executed by the parties and preliminarily approved by the District Court in July 2016. The settlement agreement is subject to further court process and final approval by the District Court. These further steps are likely to be finalized during the fourth quarter of 2016. The Company said there can be no assurance that the settlement agreement will ultimately be approved by the District Court or become effective. The Company has fully reserved for its obligations with respect to the settlement. A portion of the settlement amount is covered by the Company's insurance policies and has been funded by its insurers. ZIPTAX LLC: Meyer Given Until Jan. 25 to Re-File Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MELISSA MEYER V. ZIPTAX, LLC, Case No. 8:15- cv-01555-CJC-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Cormac J. Carney entered an order: 1. granting in part stipulation to extend deadline to file motion for class certification; and 2. denying without prejudice Plaintiff's pending motion for class certification. Ms. Melissa Meyer brought this putative class action lawsuit on October 31, 2016 against Ziptax, LLC, for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the Court's scheduling order required Plaintiff to file by November 28, 2016. However, in the motion Plaintiff requested that the Court "defer ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification until after the parties have had the opportunity to complete pre- certification discovery". The Court said, "Plaintiff explained that counsel for Defendant had ceased communicating with Plaintiff's counsel for the past month despite Plaintiff's counsel's e-mails, letters, and phone calls, and had failed to respond to outstanding discovery requests. In the motion Plaintiff also indicated her intent to file an amended motion with information obtained during discovery with leave of the Court. The Defendant did not file an opposition to the motion. On November 15, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation to extend Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply in support of the motion for class certification until January 9, 2017, and to move the hearing on the pending motion for class certification to January 23, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., in order to "resolve a discovery dispute and finish receiving evidence necessary for her motion for class certification, as well as conduct further discussions with Counsel for Defendant about the matter". The stipulation also asks the Court to extend Plaintiff's deadline to file the Motion for Class Certification to January 25, 2017". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LX9Zb8yt ********* 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 * * *