/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170315.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, March 15, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 53
Headlines
314E CORP: "Gill" Action Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery, Damages
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Motion to Certify Class Stricken as Moot
AETNA HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of "Richardson" Insurance Case
AIR RESOURCES: "Hernandez" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
ALL-AMERICAN PIPELINE: Fishermen's Class Action Can Proceed
ALLERGAN PLC: Falconer Files Anti-Trust Suit Over Doxycycline
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Hiring Fraud
AMERICAN SAVINGS: Class Certification Sought in "Moskowitz" Suit
ANTHEM PRODUCTIONS: "Collins" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
ASSET RECOVERY: Meola Seeks Certification of Class Under FDCPA
AT&T CORP: Gadelhak Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass
AUSTRALIA: NT Class Action Over Juvenile Detention Adjourned
AUSTRALIA: NT Gov't Seeks Dismissal of Juvenile Detainees' Suit
AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Moves to Certify Class of Stockholders
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Faces Securities Class Action
BEAZER HOMES: Plaintiffs Drop Class Allegations in Arizona Suit
BELLAMY'S: Faces Second Shareholder Class Action
BROADBAND TECHNICAL: "Morales" Action to Recover Overtime Pay
CANADA: Suit Says 15% Tax on Foreign Homebuyers Unconstitutional
CANADA: Gov't Discussions on Day Scholar Class Action Step Up
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: "Heredia" Suit Seeks Class Certification
CARDIN DRIVE-IN: Court Allows Service of Notice in "Garrett" Suit
CAREGIVERS INC: "Evans" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
CARING FROM THE HEART: "Howell" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay
CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Merger Dilutes Share Value, Kromphold Suit Says
CATERPILLAR INC: Bronstein Probes Potential Securities Claims
CATERPILLAR INC: May 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
CENTENE CORP: "Sanchez" Securities Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces Class Action Over Receipt Policy
CHEF ROBERT: Valdovinos Sues Over OT Pay, Illegal Termination
CHEVRON CORP: Site Managers Class Certified in "McQueen" Suit
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Police Pension Fund Suit Hits Share Price Drop
CHICAGO BRIDGE: May 2 Deadline for Bids to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
CITIZENSHIP OF MARYLAND: "Craighead" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay
CLAY ROAD: "Tayum" Suit Seeks Certification of Laborers Class
CLICKATELL INC: Erdely Sues Over SMS Ads Despite Opt-Out
CLIFFS NATURAL: Appeal in ERISA Litigation Remains Pending
CLIFFS NATURAL: Exchange Offer Litigation Dismissed
CLN GROUP: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
COLLECTION CONSULTANTS: "Gray" Suit Seeks Class Certification
COMENITY LLC: Faces "Stephens" Suit Over Illegal Collection Calls
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Backer Law Suit Seeks Certification of Class
COUSINS SUBMARINES: Assistant Managers Class Certified
CSX INTERMODAL: Seeks Dismissal of Truck Drivers' Class Action
CYNOSURE INC: "Bird" Suit Contests Merger Deal, Seeks More Data
CYNOSURE INC: Calin Contests Shadowy Merger Deal, Seeks More Data
DEJA VU SHOWGIRLS: "Lowney" Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Minimum Pay
DOCUMENT GROUP: Vaughn Seeks to Certify Manual Laborers Class
DOLE FOOD: Court Approves Merger-Related Class Action Settlement
EMERY FEDERAL: Palombaro Moves to Certify Class of U.S. Borrowers
EPATIENTS.COM INC: Status Hearing in "Gress" Suit on April 18
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Boren Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
FEMALE HEALTH: "Glotzer" Class Suit Remains Pending
FEMALE HEALTH: "Schartz" Class Suit Remains Pending
FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE: Dye Seeks Preliminary Settlement Approval
FINE WINES AND SPIRITS: Faces "Leach" Suit Over Overtime Pay
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Caldera Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
FISHER HOMES: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Ayala" Suit
FKG OIL: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over ADA Violation
FLINT, MI: May Need Two Years to Be Able to Treat Own Water
FOFO'S TOY: Class Certification Sought in Morgan & Curtis Suit
FONTEM US: Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration Held
FORD MOTOR: June 11, 2018 Hearing Set in Powershift Class Action
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Burrell Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
GAITHER TECHNOLOGIES: Holt Healthcare Moves to Certify 3 Classes
GENERAL MOTORS: Must Face Chevy Cruze Emissions Class Action
GEORGIA: Implements Final Changes to Child Welfare System
GLOBAL CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Guthrie" Suit
GROVETOWN, GA: Settles Class Action Over Water Bill Overcharges
HAPPY CAB: "Knox" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Due, Damages
HERMES LANDSCAPING: Faces "Rodiguez" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
HMS HOLDINGS: Danahar Sues Over Share Price Drop
HMS HOLDINGS: May 2 Deadline for Bids to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
HOME DEPOT: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action in Chicago
ICON SOUTH: Renter Files Class Action Over Application Fees
INLAND BANCORP: Court Denies iMove Chicago's Bid to Certify Class
KANSAS, USA: Thayer Moves to Certify Classes of Sexual Predators
LENDING CLUB: Judge Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
LIONS GATE: Remaining Defendants Answer Starz Merger Suit in Del.
LIONS GATE: Colorado Class Suit Remains Stayed
LIONS GATE: Settlement of N.Y. Class Action Pending
LJ ROSS: Certification of Two Classes Sought in "White" Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: Garcia Moves to Certify Class of DSO, SDSO & GSN
LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNMENT: "Mungen" Action Seeks to Recover OT Pay
LUNADA BAY: Beachgoers Class Not Certified in "Spencer" Suit
METTRUM LTD: Faces Class Action Over Pesticide Use
METTRUM LTD: Canopy Growth Responds to Class Action
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over TCPA Violation
MINOR LEAGUE: Baseball Players' Wage Class Action Recertified
MISONIX INC: Scalfani's Motion for Lead Plaintiff Remains Pending
MULTI PACKAGING: Monteverde Investigates Securities Claims
MMW CAFE: "Munna" Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Spread of Hours Pay
NANTHEALTH INC: Faces Class Action, May 8 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
NASON HOMES: Caldwell Claims Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay
NEINSTEIN FIRM: Hodge's Case Personal Injury Not Class Action
NETFLIX INC: Faces Class Action, May 1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
NOVARTIS PHARMA: Judge Strikes Down Class Action Certification
OMEGA PROTEIN: Faces "Malone" Suit Over Share Price Drop
ONONDAGA, NY: Juvenile Solitary Confinement Case Can Proceed
OPTUMRX INC: "Watson" Insurance Case Transferred to D. Minn.
ORGANIGRAM INC: Responds to Class Action Over Product Recalls
OVERLAND SOLUTIONS: Sanford Heisler Files Wage Class Action
PALM BEACH SCHOOL BOARD: Friedenberg Seeks Class Certification
PENN NATIONAL: Class Certification Sought in "Wysincavage" Suit
PEOPLES BANK: Cunningham Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Motions to Dismiss Broiler Chicken Suit Underway
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Lead Plaintiff Not Yet Appointed in "Hogan" Suit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Suit Filed in Oklahoma Court
PRINCE BAKERY: "Infante" Action Seeks OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
PRO FOOTBALL: Hall of Fame Game Class Action Returns to Ohio
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Class Action Over Auto Policies Revived
PTC INC: Settlement Remains Pending in "Crandall" Case
PUTNAM INVESTMENTS: Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Heads to Trial
QUALCOMM INC: Dietrich Files Antitrust Case Over Phone Chipset
QUALCOMM INC: Espinosa Files Antitrust Case Over Phone Chipset
QUEENS DOLLAR: Barrera Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
RAY SCOTT RISTER: Faces "Northrup" Suit Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
RED BLUFF: Female Athletes File Title IX Class Action
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeals Court Orders New Trial in Johnson Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,406 Broin II Lawsuits Pending in Florida
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 25 Smoking Class Suits Pending in U.S.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference Held in "Turner" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in "Howard" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: June 5 Status Conference in "Collora" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference on June 5 in "Black" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Dismiss "Harris" Case Pending
RICHARDSON STEVEDORING: Bravo Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
SAKS FIFTH: Faces Wage Class Action in New York State Court
SANTA FE NATURAL: Motion for Class Certification Due April 2018
SAS ANALYTICS: Cahoo et al. Sue Over Insurance Program Bug
SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Romano Seeks to Certify Class Under FDCPA
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Faces "Shedron" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Still Faces Morning Song Bird Food Litigation
SCYNEXIS INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
SEPHORA USA: Burnthorne-Martinez Moves to Certify Two Classes
SGI & CO: "Navarro" Suit Hits Illegal Calls
SHELL OIL CO: "Badger" Sues Over Wheelchair Inaccessibility
SHELTER MUTUAL: "Goodner" Suit Deal OK'd; Final Hearing on May 25
SHORE CONSTRUCTION: "Magana" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
SLATER & GORDON: Legal Team Raises Conflict of Interest Concerns
SND OPERATING: Certification of Production Operators Class Sought
SOFIA FABULOUS: Faces "Guaman" Wage & Hour Suit
SOUTH FLORIDA PIZZA: Gomez Sues Over Vehicle Expense Refund
SOUTHAMPTON LLC: "Tcaciuc" Suit Seeks OT, Spread of Hours Pay
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Appeals Earthquake Class Action Ruling
STYLE CITI: Uncounted Overtime Claimed in "Bacuilima" Suit
SUBWAY: Faces Class Action Over Meat in Chicken Sandwiches
SURGICAL CARE: "Bushansky" Suit Claims Merger Deal Onerous
TACOLICIOUS: Settles Former Employees' Wage Class Action
TARGET CORP: Faces Meal, Rest Break Class Action in California
TATA CONSULTANCY: Heldt Seeks Certification of Two Classes
TAX GROUP CENTER: Van Elzen Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
TD BANK NA: Bakos Sues Over Unauthorized Background Check
THREE GUYS SUPERMARKET: "Martinez" Action to Recover Overtime Pay
TOYOTA MOTOR: "Jeffers" Suit Alleges Defective Camry Dashboards
TRANSPERFECT: Faces Data Theft Class Action in New York
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Former Student May Opt Out of Settlement
UNITED FOOD: Ohlendorf Seeks Certification of Employees Class
UNITED STATES: Sued for Denying Military Disability Benefits
UNITED STATES: Veterans Win Agent Orange Exposure Cases
VALEANT PHARMA: Labajo Sues Over Harmful Sunscreen Ingredients
VCA INC: "Kreiger" Suit Claims Merger Deal Onerous
VCA INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Loera Sues Over Phones Charges
VIZIO INC: Must Face Smart Interactivity Feature Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Crossings Mall Flooding
WILLIE'S CHICKEN: Court Certifies Workers Class in "Sauls" Suit
* ABA Opposes Class-Action Reform Legislation
* Class Action Spending Increases for Second Consecutive Year
* Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act Aims to Stem MDL Abuses
* House Set to Vote on Asbestos Claim Transparency Act
* Investor Losses in Securities-Related Class Actions Rise
* Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Oppose H.R. 985
* Some Features in Class Action Reform Bill Need Scrutiny
*********
314E CORP: "Gill" Action Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barinder Gill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 314e Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-01062, (N.D. Cal., March 1, 2017), seeks compensatory
damages, including all unpaid overtime wages, statutory damages,
liquidated damages, all interest, costs and attorney's fees
incurred, injunctive relief and such other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code and California Business
and Professions Code.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an IT consultant providing
information technology support to Defendant's clients in
California. 314e Corporation provides information technology and
educational services for the healthcare industry across the
country. 314e maintains its corporate headquarters in Fremont,
California.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew D. Carlson, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
466 Geary Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel: (415) 630-2651
Email: mcarlson@llrlaw.com
- and -
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (617) 994-5800
Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
- and -
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Camille Fundora, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 875-3000
Email: elechtzin@bm.net
sschalman-bergen@bm.net
cfundora@bm.net
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Motion to Certify Class Stricken as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order in the lawsuit styled
Christy Vazquez, the Plaintiff, v. Advocate Health Care Network,
an Illinois, Non-profit Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-
05200 (N.D. Ill.), striking Plaintiff's motion to certify class as
moot.
According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on February 28,
2017, status hearing was held and continued to March 8, 2017 at
9:00 a.m.
A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wSWZAZ8m
AETNA HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of "Richardson" Insurance Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly A. Richardson, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
Aetna Health of California Inc., Strategic Resource Company, an
Aetna Company and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-
2017-00899385-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super., January 23, 2017) is removed
to the U.S. District Court of Central California on March 2, 2017
under Case No. 8:17-cv-00377.
On March 9, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Case.
The Motion is set for hearing on April 17, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.
before Judge James V. Selna.
Richardson alleges Aetna of unjust enrichment for accepting
premiums without the possibility of coverage under her group
benefits plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 and in violation of California Business and
Professions Code. Plaintiff enrolled in a series of Aetna
insurance plans online, including a Short Term Disability Plan.
Aetna Health of California Inc. is an insurance company
incorporated under the laws of Connecticut with its principal
place of business in Hartford, Connecticut.
Defendant is represented by:
Kurt C. Peterson, Esq.
Kenneth Smersfelt, Esq.
Kevin Kroll, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
355 South Grand Ave., Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
Telephone: (213) 457-8000
Fax: (213) 457-8080
Email: kpeterson@reedsmith.com
ksmersfelt@reedsmith.com
kkroll@reedsmith.com
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
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
Email: Lee.Cirsch@capstonelawyers.com
Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com
Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com
AIR RESOURCES: "Hernandez" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Hernandez, Juan Alberto Elizondo and Sergio Rios, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Air Resources Americas LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00689,
(S.D. Tex., March 3, 2017), seek to recover overtime compensation,
other wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs of court,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief
under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Air Resources operates with the function of placing employees in
the energy, process and infrastructure industries, managing these
same employees at the various projects where it assigns them to
work. Plaintiffs were assigned to the ExxonMobil Chemical Company
facilities in Texas. Hernandez was assigned in Baytown as Field
Safety Team Member while Elizondo and Rios in Mont Belvieu as PE
SHES Advisor and Safety Advisor respectively.
Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Moises Cedillos, Esq.
John M. Padilla, Esq.
PADILLA & RODRIGUEZ, L.L.P.
5433 Westheimer, Suite 825
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 574-4600
Facsimile: (713) 574-4601
ALL-AMERICAN PIPELINE: Fishermen's Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Lehr, writing for KEYT, reports that a U.S. District Court
judge gave a green light to the first class action lawsuit filed
against Plains All-American Pipeline, but the ruling won't allow
all the plaintiffs to move forward right now.
Leila Noel of the Cappello & Noel law firm in Santa Barbara said
the judge only certified the class action lawsuit on behalf of
fishing businesses affected by the 140,000 gallon spill off the
Gaviota Coast in May 2015.
The firm is one of four representing plaintiffs.
But Ms. Noel said the judge was not ready to certify subclasses
including tourist businesses, property owners and oil industry
workers.
She said they would have to narrow the groups for consideration.
Attorneys hope to move quickly to consolidate the class action
lawsuit that could lead to a jury trial in Los Angeles or a
settlement.
A spokeswoman for Plains said the oil company does not comment on
pending litigation.
Fisherman at the wharf in Santa Barbara on March 6 said crab,
cucumber and shrimp fishermen may have felt the biggest financial
loss.
Some people received reimbursements from the Texas-based oil
company during the clean-up.
They also signed paperwork, but Noel said that does not mean they
have lost their right to join the class action lawsuit entitled
Andrews et al v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. et al.
ALLERGAN PLC: Falconer Files Anti-Trust Suit Over Doxycycline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Falconer Pharmacy, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan PLC (formerly Actavis
Inc.), Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Impax Laboratories, Inc.,
Lannett Company, Inc., Mayne, Inc., Mylan, Inc., Par
Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. and West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00973 (E.D. Pa., March 3, 2017),
seeks damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief available
under federal antitrust laws, state antitrust laws, and state
consumer protection laws.
The action accuses Defendants of conspiring to fix, maintain,
and/or stabilize the prices of generic digoxin or doxycycline.
Plaintiff indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided
reimbursement for these products made by one or more Defendants at
supracompetitive prices.
Lannett is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lannett is a distributor
of generic digoxin and generic doxycycline.
Impax is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in Hayward, California. Impax's generics division is
called Global Pharmaceuticals and is a manufacturer and
distributor of generic digoxin.
Par is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in Chestnut Ridge, New York. It supplies and distributes a generic
version of Lanoxin (R) (digoxin) tablets.
Allergan PLC is a $23 billion diversified global pharmaceutical
company into global generics, dermatology and aesthetics, CNS, eye
care, urology, gastro-intestinal, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular
and infectious diseases. It is based in Dublin, Ireland and U.S.
Administrative Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey, USA.
Actavis plc is a pharmaceutical corporation with its global
headquarters in Dublin, Ireland, and with administrative
headquarters in New Jersey.
Mylan, Inc. is a global generics and specialty pharmaceutical
company based in the Netherlands.
Mayne Pharma (USA), Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place
of business at 3301 Benson Drive, Suite 401, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp. is based in Eatontown, New Jersey
and is the U.S. agent and subsidiary of Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC.
It has a New Jersey production facility for digoxin.
Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its
principal place of business at 12 Christopher Way, Suite 300,
Eatontown, New Jersey.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexandra Warren, Esq.
Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
Joel Davidow, Esq.
Peter Gil-Montllor, Esq.
Blaine Finley, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Tel: (202) 789-3960
Fax: (202) 789-1813
Email: awarren@cuneolaw.com
jonc@cuneolaw.com
joel@cuneolaw.com
pgil-montllor@cuneolaw.com
bfinley@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
111 West 2nd Street, Suite 1100
Jamestown, NY 14701
Tel: (716) 664.2967
Email: bailey@ruppbaase.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Hiring Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Channick, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
mechanic at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport is suing
American Airlines for fraud, claiming he was recruited under a
fast-track pay program that was dropped two months after he was
hired in 2015.
The lawsuit, filed Feb. 28 in Cook County Circuit Court, seeks
class-action status and was brought by Thomas Ballard on behalf of
potentially "hundreds of employees" who allegedly had their two-
year flight to "top-scale" pay abruptly grounded by the airline.
Mr. Ballard was a 24-year aviation mechanic making more than $30
an hour working for another airline when he met with American
Airlines in March 2015. The flex incentive program, which had
been in place for about a year, offered credit for previous
employment and a two-year track to a top-of-scale hourly wage of
$48, according to the lawsuit.
Hired in June 2015 to work for American as an aviation maintenance
technician at O'Hare, Mr. Ballard took a pay cut to $25.70 per
hour under the premise that he could nearly double his pay within
two years. By August, just several months removed from a "secure
position" with another employer, Mr. Ballard learned that American
was rescinding the incentive program, meaning it would take him
eight years -- not two -- to reach the top pay rate, the lawsuit
alleges.
"That's one heck of an incentive to people, saying you can go from
A to B a lot quicker and faster and better than you could before,"
Larry Drury, a Chicago-based attorney representing
Mr. Ballard in the lawsuit, said on March 8. "Unfortunately, it
has not turned out that way."
American Airlines spokeswoman Leslie Scott said the company can't
comment on pending litigation.
The lawsuit alleges that American was already in discussions with
representatives of the Transport Workers Union of America Local
591 to drop the program at the time Mr. Ballard was hired.
Brian Friedman, TWU Local 591's regional vice president, said on
March 7 that he was not involved in the negotiations with American
over the flex program and declined further comment.
The lawsuit alleges that American committed fraud, breach of oral
contract and unjust enrichment and seeks actual, compensatory and
punitive damages for Ballard and other potential members of the
class.
"They breached the agreement, and the agreement goes not only to
him but to all the other persons that we're seeking to represent
here, which will become quite substantial," Mr. Drury said. "We
would like to believe that the court will certify the class, but
it's a long process before you get to that point."
AMERICAN SAVINGS: Class Certification Sought in "Moskowitz" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled CRAIG MOSKOWITZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN SAVINGS
BANK, F.S.B., Case No. 3:17-cv-00307 (D. Conn.), moves the Court
for an order:
A. taking this 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 the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=paCdImgo
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
ANTHEM PRODUCTIONS: "Collins" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Collins, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Anthem
Productions, LLC and Angelo Poulos, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01567, (S.D. N.Y., March 2, 2017), seeks damages
sustained as a result of unpaid wages, liquidated damages and any
other statutory penalties, damages resulting from the Defendants'
retaliatory actions including an injunction restraining future
retaliatory actions, compensation for lost wages, benefits and all
other remuneration, whether back pay or front pay, whether legal
or equitable, emotional distress damages and punitive damages,
costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and
other costs and expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
as provided by the fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Laws.
Defendants operate as Anthem Sound, Stage and Lighting, a company
owned by Angelo Poulos that specializes in audio, video,
intelligent lighting, and effects systems for events, clubs and
other entities. Plaintiff worked as an audio technician. He
complained of not receiving pay stubs to adequately account of
hours of work as well as unaccounted overtime. He was terminated
after voicing out his complain.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Dong Phuong V. Nguyen, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli (Mb 8533), Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
Great Neck, New York 11021
Tel. (516) 248-5550
Fax. (516) 248-6027
ASSET RECOVERY: Meola Seeks Certification of Class Under FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled LEONARDO MEOLA, individually
and on behalf of a class v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, and
BUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP PORTFOLIO NO. 15, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01017-MKB-JO (E.D.N.Y.), seeks to certify a class, defined as (a)
all natural persons with New York addresses (b) who were sent a
letter by Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, on behalf of Bureaus
Investment Group Portfolio No. 15, LLC, in the form represented by
Exhibit A (c) which letter was sent on or after a date one year
prior to the filing of this action, and (d) on or before a date 21
days after the filing of this action.
Mr. Meola asserts claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act. He further asks that Shaked Law Group, P.C. and Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the
class.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=S40jhqCm
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60603-3593
Telephone: (312) 739-4200
Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
E-mail: thardy@edcombs.com
- and -
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
44 Court Street, Suite 1217
Brooklyn, NY 11217
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
Facsimile: (718) 504-7555
E-mail: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
AT&T CORP: Gadelhak Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ALI GADELHAK, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AT&T CORP., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01559 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to certify a class and subclass:
Class:
"(1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
telephone number (3) AT&T placed a non-emergency text message
(4) using an automatic telephone dialing system (5) during a
time period beginning four years before the filing of this
complaint (6) where AT&T did not have consent to send such
text message; and
Survey Call Sub-Class:
"(1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
telephone number (3) AT&T sent a customer satisfaction survey
text message (4) using the system(s) that sent the text to
Plaintiff (5) during a time period beginning four years before
the filing of this complaint (6) where the person was not an
AT&T customer".
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending text messages to consumers'
cellular telephone numbers using an automated telephone dialing
system without having the consumers' express consent to receive
such messages.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Tp386rEP
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
Donald Sawyer, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD.
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 726 1092
Facsimile: (312) 726 1093
E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com
AUSTRALIA: NT Class Action Over Juvenile Detention Adjourned
------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Davidson, writing for The Guardian, reports that a class
action against the Northern Territory government over the
treatment of juveniles in detention was adjourned on March 8 ahead
of a challenge to the federal court's jurisdiction, and pending
the outcome of a racial discrimination complaint.
Lawyers for the NT government pointed to six other juvenile
detention-related civil cases currently before the supreme court
and claimed the federal court had no jurisdiction to hear the
matter.
The class action, which lawyers said potentially included 1,800
applicants although only 30 had been contacted so far, is expected
to take years to get to trial.
It accuses NT authorities of unlawful discrimination, false
imprisonment, assault and battery, and breach of residual liberty
against juveniles held in NT correctional facilities, including
the Don Dale detention centre, over the past 10 years.
On March 8 the case was adjourned until May, pending further
submissions as well as the outcome of a complaint to the
Australian Human Rights Commission.
Ben Slade, the Maurice Blackburn lawyer acting for the applicants,
said he believed the federal court was right to hear the case.
Speaking outside the court, Mr. Slade said the discrimination
complaint, which his firm lodged on behalf of the class action
clients in December, would likely be referred to the federal
court, reinforcing the court's jurisdiction over the matter.
The Australian Human Rights Commission told Guardian Australia a
complaint could only go to the federal court once the complainant
and respondent had attempted conciliation, but Maurice Blackburn
is seeking to have it sent to the court as a matter of public
interest.
The complaint, seen by Guardian Australia, claimed racial
discrimination on the basis that 97% of the NT juvenile detention
population is Indigenous.
It said lead applicants Aaron Hyde and Trevor Jenkings, as well as
other class action members, were subject to "excessive,
unreasonable, unnecessary, inappropriate and/or unlawful use of
force, restraint, searches, and/or isolation" and were
"accommodated in substandard conditions and from time to time
deprived of food, water, clothing and bedding as forms of
punishment".
"The treatment that our client was subjected to in youth detention
centres in the Northern Territory would not have occurred if not
for the fact that the overwhelming majority of young people in
detention in the Northern Territory are Indigenous Australians."
The arguments mirrored those in the class action.
"This doesn't mean that anyone is saying these young people
weren't naughty, that they weren't guilty of offences but
deprivation of liberty is the penalty of last resort, it is not to
torture people once they get into jail," Slade said.
"Those people need to be compensated if that was done to them and
the government really needs to be called to account over this, and
hopefully fix up the system for the future so recidivism rates can
fall away."
Numerous parties and legal organisations are navigating a host of
civil suits, criminal cases, complaints, and inquiries, related to
the long-running Northern Territory juvenile detention scandal.
As well as the class action there have also been also six civil
cases, the human rights commission complaint, a since-withdrawn
counterclaim against two detainees, and the royal commission.
Any outcome in the civil case was also potentially dependent on
other cases, and negotiations with the government outside of trial
would also wait until the royal commission handed down its
findings, Slade said.
"We thought we should probably let the royal commission run its
course before that happens, and we wouldn't want this class action
to interfere in any way with the royal commission."
Slade said the government response to civil claims so far had been
"a vigorous defence".
In January the deputy chief minister, Nicole Manison, said the
government would not comment on the case as it was before the
courts, but said alleged incidents occurred before the Michael
Gunner-led government took office.
"Our government's focus remains on finding solutions to the
problems that have historically surrounded youth justice in the
territory."
The NT Labor government, which came to power in August, has
committed to completely rewrite the Youth Justice Act based on
recommendations from the royal commission.
Both sides of the class action case have until early May to
provide submission outlines and amendments, including the removal
from the class action of current and former detainees who have
already commenced legal proceedings of their own.
AUSTRALIA: NT Gov't Seeks Dismissal of Juvenile Detainees' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hayley Sorensen, writing for NT News, reports that lawyers for the
NT Government have sought to have a class action brought against
it by former youth justice detainees thrown out of court.
Young crims Aaron Hyde and Dylan Jenkings are the lead applicants
in the claim brought against the Territory in Federal Court by law
firm Maurice Blackburn. The statement of claim details a litany
of alleged abuses while they were detained at Don Dale.
In a brief mention on March 8, government lawyers claimed the
matter should not be heard by the court as it was outside its
jurisdiction.
Outside court, Maurice Blackburn's Ben Slade said the class action
could involve up to 1800 former detainees. He said the firm was
keen to talk about a settlement when the time was right.
Hyde has been jailed over a crime spree in 2015, which ended with
a 183km/h car crash and the death of his friend, Ashley Richards.
AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Moves to Certify Class of Stockholders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Avalanche Defendants in the consolidated lawsuit titled In re
Avalanche Biotechnologies Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-
03185-JD (N.D. Cal.), move the Court to certify this class:
"All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. ("Avalanche") common
stock between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015 (the "Class
Period"), inclusive. Excluded from the Class are anyone
named as a defendant in this litigation, the present and
former officers and directors of any defendants, members of
their immediate families and their legal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which
defendants have or had a controlling interest."
The Avalanche Defendants also ask the Court for an order (i)
certifying the Class before the Court adjudicates the pending
Motion to Dismiss, (ii) appointing Plaintiffs Arpan Bachhawat and
Srikanth Koneru as Class Representatives, and (iii) appointing
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as Class Counsel.
The Court will commence a hearing on March 30, 2017, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FQ1Uc7u6
Defendants Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc., Thomas W. Chalberg,
Jr., Linda C. Bain, Mark S. Blumenkranz, John P. McLaughlin,
Steven D. Schwartz and Paul D. Wachter are represented by:
Robert L. Dell Angelo, Esq.
Allison B. Stein, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Telephone: (213) 683-9100
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
E-mail: robert.dellangelo@mto.com
allison.stein@mto.com
- and -
DAVID H. FRY, Esq.
ADAM I. KAPLAN, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
Telephone: (415) 512-4000
Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
E-mail: david.fry@mto.com
adam.kaplan@mto.com
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Faces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Carina Storrs, writing for KC Register, reports that Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of purchasers of Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises,
Inc., common stock during the period between July 1, 2015 and
February 28, 2017 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges B&W
and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. B&W is a technology-based
provider of advanced fossil and renewable power generation
equipment that includes a suite of boiler products, environmental
systems, and services for power and industrial uses.
On March 3, 2017, Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. share price
closed at $10.49. Company net profit margin stands at -2.90%
whereas its return on equity (ROE) is -7.20%. Babcock & Wilcox
Enterprises, Inc. is -56.27% away from its 52 week high.
BEAZER HOMES: Plaintiffs Drop Class Allegations in Arizona Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have withdrawn the class action allegations against
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2017, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016.
A purported class action lawsuit was filed on July 7, 2016 against
the Company in Maricopa County Arizona Superior Court on behalf of
all homeowners in Arizona that purchased homes from the Company
that included a certain type of roof underlayment. The complaint
alleges various construction defects, but principally claims that
the roof underlayment is susceptible to leaks and was not
installed in accordance with best practices.
The Company said, "We removed this case to federal court and filed
motions to dismiss the class action allegations on various
grounds. The plaintiffs have now withdrawn the class action
allegations without prejudice and filed an amended complaint. In
light of the dismissal of the class action allegations, the
Company is handling this matter in the ordinary course of
defending against alleged construction defect claims covered by
the Company's warranty. As such, the Company does not plan to
report further on this case in future periodic reports."
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. is a geographically diversified homebuilder
with active operations in 13 states within three geographic
regions in the United States: the West, East and Southeast.
BELLAMY'S: Faces Second Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------
David Chau, writing for Finance News Network, reports that
embattled infant formula company, Bellamy's Australia has been hit
with a second class action in the Federal Court of Australia.
Plaintiff law firm, Maurice Blackburn, has served a statement of
claim against Bellamy's, on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Bellamy's shares between April 14 and December 9, 2016.
In this second class action, it's alleged that Bellamy's breached
the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in relation to misleading or
deceptive conduct and continuous disclosure obligations.
The company says it will vigorously defend these proceedings -- in
addition, to the first class action brought against it by Slater &
Gordon Lawyers.
BROADBAND TECHNICAL: "Morales" Action to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacinto Morales and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Broadband Technical Resources, Inc., Gary W. Blount, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-20825, (S.D. Fla., March 2, 2017), seeks double
damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and
severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all
overtime wages still owing, interest and any other relief.
Plaintiff worked for the Defendant, an internet servicing company
owned by Blount, as a cable installer/splicer from on or about
October 15, 2013 through on or about January 5, 2017.
Plaintiff is represented by:
J.H. Zidell, Esq.
J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Tel: (305) 865-6766
Fax: (305) 865-7167
Email: zabogado@aol.com
CANADA: Suit Says 15% Tax on Foreign Homebuyers Unconstitutional
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a 15-per-cent tax on foreign
homebuyers in Metro Vancouver is unconstitutional and unfairly
discriminates against people from Asia, a proposed class-action
lawsuit against the British Columbia government argues.
An amended document filed in B.C. Supreme Court argues the
so-called foreign-buyers' tax is unconstitutional because it
violates equality rights by making an "arbitrary" distinction
between those who are citizens and permanent residents of Canada
and those who are not.
"The disadvantage perpetuates prejudice and stereotyping on the
basis of national origin," the 26-page lawsuit says.
"The foreign nationals' property tax is disproportionately felt by
person whose national origin is from an Asian country, a class of
persons that have historically suffered discrimination in British
Columbia."
The lawsuit, which was originally filed in September, says the tax
unfairly assumes foreign nationals are wealthier than Canadians,
and argues it violates dozens of international treaties
guaranteeing equal treatment to non-Canadian citizens and
permanent residents.
The B.C. government introduced the foreign-buyers' tax with little
warning last summer in an effort to quell Metro Vancouver's
overheated real-estate market, which saw July prices for detached
homes soar 38 per cent over a single year.
The law was passed on July 28 and came into effect five days
later, sparking a frenzy to complete property transfers before the
tax kicked in on Aug. 2. The move also prompted the province's
Land Title and Survey Authority to extend its hours and its
availability over the long weekend.
A spokesman from the province's Finance Ministry confirmed in an
email on March 6 that the government had received the amended
notice of claim and would file a response in due course.
"As this case is currently before the court, it would be
inappropriate to comment on the specific matters that have been
raised," Jamie Edwardson said.
The representative plaintiff in the proposed class action is Jing
Li, a Chinese national who learned she would have to pay an
additional $83,850 on a $587,895 home in Langley that she agreed
to purchase days before the government announced the new tax.
Li moved to Canada in 2013 to complete a Master's degree in public
administration at the University of Saskatchewan. She later moved
to Burnaby before putting an offer on the Langley home.
Eight days before the law was announced Li paid a non-refundable
deposit of $55,990, which she would have had to forfeit had she
been unable to come up with the extra money for the tax.
"On Nov. 18, 2016, Ms. Li completed her purchase and did in fact
pay $83,850 in foreign nationals' property tax," the lawsuit says.
"Had Ms. Li had a Canadian passport or permanent resident status,
she would not have had to pay this additional amount."
The court document describes the disadvantage the tax places on
non-Canadians and non-permanent residents as arbitrary because it
assumes foreign nationals are richer and better able to outbid
domestic homebuyers.
"Nationality and citizenship are not related to wealth," the
lawsuit says.
"The foreign nationals' property tax is over inclusive because
many persons who are neither Canadian citizens nor permanent
residents have no more wealth than Canadian citizens or permanent
residents."
Earlier this year, Premier Christy Clark announced the government
would tweak the law to provide relief to people who are invited to
work in B.C. and who contribute to the province.
A spokesman with the B.C.'s Finance Ministry said in an email that
work is underway on that policy and more details will be available
once the regulations are announced.
CANADA: Gov't Discussions on Day Scholar Class Action Step Up
-------------------------------------------------------------
NetNewsLedger reports that the Representative Plaintiffs in the
Day Scholars Class Action anticipate a busy few months ahead as
discussions with Canada's Ministerial Special Representative,
Tom Isaac move into high gear. Following Mr. Isaac's appointment
by the Honourable Carolyn Bennett, Minister for Indigenous
Affairs, the two sides have held preliminary meetings to help
Mr. Isaac understand the depth of the impact of attendance at
Residential Schools by the Day Scholars. Meeting dates through
the next several months have now been scheduled in attempt to move
this matter forward.
Launched in 2012 by the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc and shishalh Indian
Bands, who were joined by the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou
Istchee), the Day Scholars Class Action lawsuit seeks
compensation on behalf of all Aboriginal Canadians who attended an
Indian Residential School, but who did not sleep there. The case
also seeks declarations regarding Canada's role in the failure to
protect Aboriginal language and culture, and looks for
compensation for the children of survivors, and the bands to which
survivors belong.
The Plaintiffs remain committed to a fair outcome for all
survivors, their children and their bands, and will work hard to
ensure that the voices of all those who attended the Indian
Residential Schools, but who were not compensated under the Indian
Residential Schools Settlement, are heard. At this time, there
are no steps that class members need to take; anyone who fits the
definition of a Day Scholar is automatically included in the
lawsuit. Prior to any proposed settlement, the Representative
Plaintiffs will be notifying the class of the terms. In addition,
no settlement can be reached without Court approval. As more
information becomes available, it will be shared with Aboriginal
people across Canada.
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: "Heredia" Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MABEL L. HEREDIA, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P., the Defendants, Case No.: 1:17-cv-
00284-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order determining that the lawsuit, brought pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, may proceed as a class action
against Capital Management Services, L.P.
The class is defined as:
"(a) all individuals with Wisconsin addresses (b) to whom
Capital Management Services, LP sent a letter offering a
settlement (c) which letter referred to tax consequences or
1099C filing, (d) where the letter was sent on or after one
year prior to the date this complaint was filed and on or
before 21 days after the date
this complaint was filed".
Excluded from the Class are Capital Management Services, L.P. and
all officers, members, partners, managers, directors, and
employees of Capital Management Services, L.P. and their
respective immediate families, and legal counsel for all parties
to this action and all members of their immediate families.
The Plaintiff further asks that Stern Thomasson LLP and the Law
Office of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed
counsel for the class.
The complaint says Defendant has been attempting to collect an
alleged credit card debt from plaintiff which was incurred, if at
all, for personal, family or household purposes. On October 5,
2016, Capital Management Services, LP, acting on behalf of
Discover Bank sent plaintiff a letter seeking to collect the
alleged debt.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8jxAfhYO
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Francis R. Greene, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 917 4500
Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
E-Mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
fgreene@edcombs.com
- and -
Heather B. Jones, Esq.
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
STERN THOMASSON LLP
150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081-1329
Telephone: (973) 379 7500
Facsimile: (973) 532 5868
E-mail: heather@sternthomasson.com
CARDIN DRIVE-IN: Court Allows Service of Notice in "Garrett" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation in the lawsuit captioned
CHERYL GARRETT, et al. v. CARDIN DRIVE-IN INC., et al., Case No.
3:16-cv-00551-RLJ-HBG (E.D. Tenn.), Magistrate Judge H. Bruce
Guyton ruled that:
1. Plaintiffs' counsel is authorized to serve the notice of
lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, with
enclosed consent to join, to all current and former hourly
employees of Cardin Drive-In for a three year period
beginning on the date the motion for the approval of the
Notice was filed or for the period beginning on January 6,
2017;
2. Notice will be mailed to all current and former hourly
employees at their last known address as provided on a list
to be provided by Defendants to Plaintiffs' counsel within
20 days of the entry of this Order;
3. Plaintiffs' request for the Notice to be posted at the
workplace or provided with paychecks is denied at this
time;
4. All Consents to Join will be deemed "filed" on the date
they are received by Plaintiffs' counsel;
5. The opt-in period will run for 60 days from the time the
Notice is mailed;
6. The Statute of Limitations will not be tolled during this
time; and
7. Defendants retain all defenses, including all objections to
a three-year statute of limitations period and the right to
seek decertification at the close of discovery.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=J4ObcmZM
CAREGIVERS INC: "Evans" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Evans and Denise Starks, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Caregivers, Inc., and
Robert Deblasio, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00402,
(M.D. Tenn., March 1, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation,
an equal amount of liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Caregivers, Inc. is a privately held home care staffing company
providing lifestyle support such as morning care and bathing,
light housekeeping, shopping, errands, meal preparation and diet
monitoring, medical appointments, assistance with medications and
other services for the aged, infirm, disabled and others needing
assistance. Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as caregivers.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jimmy Bewley, Esq.
Jenni Bryant, Esq.
JAMES BEWLEY LAW PLLC
300 10th Ave., South
Nashville TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 988-9411
E-mail: jbewley@JBLfirm.com
jbryant@JBLfirm.com
- and -
Peter F. Klett, Esq.
Joshua Burgener, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
Fifth Third Center
424 Church St., Suite 1401
Nashville TN 37219-2392
Tel: (615) 244-6538
CARING FROM THE HEART: "Howell" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Katelin Howell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Caring from the Heart, LLC, a Michigan
limited liability corporation, and Meradith Fithian, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-10702 (E.D. Mich., March
6, 2017) seeks unpaid back wages at the applicable overtime rates,
liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees incurred prosecuting
this claim, pre- and post-judgment interest and relief as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act, Michigan Minimum Wage Law and the
Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act.
Caring from the Heart, LLC is a Michigan limited liability company
owned entirely by Fithian and operating out of her home, which is
located at 5001 Nichols Rd, Swartz Creek, County of Genesee,
Michigan, 48473 where Plaintiff worked as home care workers.
Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Blanchard, Esq.
Daniel C. Tai, Esq.
BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 929-4313
Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
tai@bwlawonline.com
CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Merger Dilutes Share Value, Kromphold Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kromphold, Individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Castlight Health, Inc., Giovanni
M.Colella, Bryan Roberts, Annlamont, Ed Park, David B. Singer,
Michael Eberhard, Davidebersman, and Kenny Van Zant, Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01081, (N.D. Cal., March 1, 2017), seeks to
enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with the shareholder vote on the merger or consummating
it. The case also seeks damages sustained, costs and
disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and expenses and such other and further relief under
the Securities and Exchange Act.
On January 4, 2017, Castlight entered into a merger with Jiff,
Inc. with the latter surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Castlight. Jiff shareholders and option holders have the right to
receive up to 4,000,000 shares of Castlight Class B common stock
or options with rights to Castlight Class B common stock,
respectively, upon the achievement by the Jiff business of certain
milestones in 2017. Specifically, former Jiff share and option
holders will receive an aggregate of 1,000,000 shares of Castlight
Class B common stock or Castlight options if the Jiff business
achieves at least $25 million in revenue in 2017.
Plaintiff, a shareholder of Castlight, alleges the merger dilutes
Castlight's current shareholders.
Castlight provides a set of applications and services that enables
employers to deliver cost-effective benefits, medical
professionals, and health plans. It offers dashboards, reports,
and analytics to pinpoint opportunities that eliminate wasteful
healthcare spending and poor-quality outcomes.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 971-1341
E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
- and -
David E. Bower, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
Culver City, CA 90230
Tel: (310) 446-6652
Fax: (212) 601-2610
Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com
CATERPILLAR INC: Bronstein Probes Potential Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, is investigating potential
claims on behalf of purchasers of Caterpillar Inc. ("Caterpillar"
or the "Company") (NYSE: CAT). Such investors are encouraged to
obtain additional information and assist the investigation by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/cat.
The investigation concerns whether Caterpillar and certain of its
officers and/or directors have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On March 2, 2017, law enforcement officials executing a search
warrant searched the Caterpillar's facilities in Peoria, Illinois.
The Peoria Journal Star narrated that some of the officials
wearing Internal Revenue Service logo jackets were seen entering
the company's headquarters. Following this news, Caterpillar
stock has dropped as much as 4.05 per share, or 4.11%, during
intraday trading on March 2, 2017.
If you are aware of any facts relating to this investigation, or
purchased shares of Caterpillar, you can assist this investigation
by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/cat. You can also
contact Peretz Bronstein or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael
Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC: 212-697-6484.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of its clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.
CATERPILLAR INC: May 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Paldo, writing for CentralIllinoisProud, reports that
another lawsuit against Caterpillar, just days after federal
investigators raid 3 local facilities.
Glancy, Prongay & Murray, a law firm out of Los Angeles, is
announcing this class action lawsuit on March 6 on behalf of
investors who purchased Caterpillar stock.
Investors who suffered losses on their Caterpillar investments are
being asked to contact the firm to file a lead plaintiff motion.
The firm says this applies to investors who bought stock between
February 2013 and March 2017. Investors who purchased the stock
during the given period have until May 2nd to file the motion.
The suit mentions that on the day of the federal raid, shares fell
by over 4.5% or over $4.50 per share.
The lawsuit alleges that Caterpillar made false and misleading
statements or failed to disclose that Caterpillar unlawfully used
foreign subsidiaries to avoid paying billions of dollars in US
taxes. It goes on to say that discovery of such conduct would
subject Caterpillar to heightened regulatory scrutiny and
potential criminal sanctions and as a result, Caterpillar's public
statements were materially false and misleading.
This class action lawsuit comes after one of Caterpillar
shareholders announces he's also taking the company to court.
Jacob Newman is suing Caterpillar and 3 top executives.
He also claims the company made false and misleading statements
and engaged in unlawful acts. It's all in relation to CSARL, a
parts subsidiary in Switzerland. Mr. Newman claims this has
caused him "significant losses."
CENTENE CORP: "Sanchez" Securities Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Sanchez, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Centene Corp., Michael F. Neidorff and
Jeffrey A. Schwaneke, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-08469, (C.D.
Cal., November 11, 2016), was transferred to the U.S. District
Court of Eastern Missouri on March 1, 2017, under Case No. 4:17-
cv-00806.
Centene provides health plans in over 20 states through Medicaid,
Medicare and the Health Insurance Marketplace. On March 24, 2016,
it acquired Health Net, Inc. for approximately $6 billion,
including the assumption of its outstanding debt. Company
incorrectly accounted for Health Net's underperforming health
plans, including by understating certain reserves to account for
losses in California, Arizona and Oregon. This resulted in the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities. Sanchez purchased Centene shares and lost
substantially.
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 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com
Defendants are represented by:
Peter Bradley Morrison, Esq.
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER AND FLOM LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 687-5000
Fax: (213) 687-5600
Email: peter.morrison@skadden.com
- and -
Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
Scott D. Musoff, Esq.
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER AND FLOM LLP
Four Times Square, 42nd Floor
New York, NY 10036-6522
Tel: (212) 735-2628
Fax: (917) 777-2628
Email: jay.kasner@skadden.com
scott.musoff@skadden.com
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces Class Action Over Receipt Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien and Chandra Lye, writing for Legal Newsline, report
that a well-known restaurant chain has been accused of putting
customers' private information at risk by a chiropractor who once
pleaded guilty to defrauding the government and has recently used
a Florida federal court to file several class action lawsuits over
receipts and faxes.
Dr. David Muransky, of Broward County, FL, is working on his
second individual class action lawsuit while a settlement in the
first that would pay him $10,000 and his lawyers $2.1 million is
fought by fellow class members.
Also, Aventura Chiropractic Care Center filed four class actions
of its own over faxes it received while Dr. Muransky was listed on
business records as the company's president.
Most recently, Dr. Muransky apparently opened a new practice in
Cooper City, FL, then filed a class action lawsuit against the
Cheesecake Factory in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on Jan. 30, claiming it has violated a federal
law with its receipt policy.
Dr. Muransky alleges that the restaurant gives out receipts that
have sensitive customer information on them. The accusation falls
under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) of
2003.
The complaint came after Dr. Muransky allegedly received a receipt
on Jan. 22 that contained too much of his credit card information.
The complaint specifically states that the receipts from the
Cheesecake Factory contain the first six digits of their cards and
the last four digits. The plaintiff argues that this puts
customers at risk for identity theft.
A spokesperson for the restaurant said it is planning to exhibit a
strong defense.
"We are aware of the complaint filed by Mr. Muransky. We intend
to vigorously defend against this complaint but are not able to
comment specifically regarding this matter due to the pending
litigation," Alethea Rowe, senior director, public relations for
the Cheesecake Factory Inc. told Legal Newsline in a written
statement.
Dr. Muransky is represented by Keogh Law in Chicago, Brett Luskin
of Aventura, FL, and Scott D. Owens of Hollywood, FL.
They are the same attorneys who are representing Dr. Muransky in a
class action lawsuit against Godiva Chocolates that makes similar
receipt allegations. It was filed in April 2015.
The $6.3 million proposed settlement in the case has drawn
objections, though, after it was approved in September by Judge
William Dimitrouleas.
Two such class members have taken their fight against the
settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
Class member Eric Alan Isaacson, a class action plaintiffs lawyer,
objects to the $10,000 incentive payment proposed to
Dr. Muransky for his role as lead plaintiff. He noted that his
class action was filed within a week of receiving his receipt from
a Godiva store in Aventura.
He also says Dr. Muransky is not an adequate class representative
because of a previous fraud conviction. Dr. Muransky was accused
of charging Medicaid for spinal manipulations he never performed,
though the amount in question was a relatively small sum -- $245.
"I mean the whole thing was a joke," Dr. Muransky said in a
deposition for another case, filed by Aventura Chiropractic Care.
"The other offices were changing dates and doing wrong things.
"I didn't do anything wrong . . . They disregarded my testimony.
So yes I'm still angry."
The FBI investigation into Dr. Muransky's billing practices began
in 1984. He pleaded guilty in 1989 and was sentenced to three
years probation and restricted from the Medicare and Medicaid
systems for five years.
Aventura Chiropractic Care Center has filed four class actions
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging faxes it
received do not include an opt-out clause required by the law.
Aventura used different lawyers for those claims -- Anderson +
Wanca of Rolling Meadows, IL, is listed on all four, and Cohen
Milstein's Palm Beach Gardens, FL, is listed on one, as is
Mracheck Fitzgerald of West Palm Beach, FL.
Addison & Howard, of Tampa, FL, also represented Aventura on one
of its cases.
As for Dr. Muransky's Godiva case, Mr. Isaacson said he received a
notice that he would be eligible to receive $235 from the Godiva
settlement and believes Dr. Muransky's attorneys settled the case
for a fraction of what they were seeking to avoid the fallout from
the U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 Spokeo decision, which requires a
plaintiff to show concrete and particularized harm.
Fellow objector James Price took issue with the amount
Dr. Muransky's attorneys stand to make in a class action in which
a motion for class certification was never submitted.
"A lawyer who recovers a common fund for a class is justly
entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses," Mr. Price's
brief to the 11th Circuit, filed Feb. 22, says.
"Here, however, the substantial size of the award vastly over-
compensates Class Counsel, especially considering the little work
they performed, the abbreviated time-span of the litigation, and
the minor, if any, risks they took."
Mr. Price says Dr. Muransky's attorneys filed only three
substantive documents over the short life of the case -- the
complaint, an amended complaint and a response to a motion to
dismiss. He says they only attained a "mediocre result" for class
members.
Dr. Muransky's lawyers will soon file response briefs with the
11th Circuit. They have argued in the district court that the
objectors should have to pay a large bond while the appeal is
heard.
Instead, the court turned down the $115,934 figure requested. The
objectors were ordered to pay only a $2,500 bond.
A class action plaintiffs attorney based in California said the
Cheesecake Factory lawsuit seems straightforward.
"Based on the allegations in the complaint, this seems like a
fairly typical FACTA claim," Aaron Blumenthal --
ab@classlawgroup.com -- of Girard Gibbs told Legal Newsline. "The
particular legislation that they are suing under was designed to
ensure that all businesses are complying with the law and
truncating credit card numbers so that the full credit card
numbers are not appearing on receipts."
Mr. Blumenthal explained that FACTA had been enacted to ensure
that vendors were truncating credit card numbers.
"There was a concern at the time that fraudsters were going
dumpster diving at restaurants to find old receipts and if all the
credit card numbers were appearing on the receipts that made it
quite easy for fraudsters, so that is why the litigation was
enacted," he said.
CHEF ROBERT: Valdovinos Sues Over OT Pay, Illegal Termination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Valdovinos, Noe Lopez and Armando Gonzalez, individually,
for themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v. Chef Robert Catering, Inc., a corporation, and Does
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC652410, (Cal.
Super., March 1, 2017), seeks legal minimum wage, overtime,
liquidated damages, interest thereon, reasonable attorney's fees
and costs of suit in violation of the California Labor Code.
Defendants operate a catering service located at 8950 Glenoaks
Blvd., Sun Valley, CA 91352 where Plaintiffs worked. They claim to
have worked through rest periods, denied pay stubs and were
illegally terminated for protesting the abovementioned.
Plaintiff is represented by:
James H. Cordes, Esq.
831 State Street, Suite 205
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 965-6800
Facsimile: (805) 965-5556
- and -
Timothy B. Sottile, Esq.
Michael F. Baltaxe, Esq.
Jeremy D. Scherwin, Esq.
Payam I. Aframian, Esq.
SOTTILE HBALTAXE
4360 Park Terrace Drive, Suite 140
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (818) 889-0050
Facsimile: (818) 889-6050
CHEVRON CORP: Site Managers Class Certified in "McQueen" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jeffrey S. White grants the Plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify the action entitled CHRISTOPHER McQUEEN,
JAMES O'NEAL, and DONNIE CUMMINGS, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v.
CHEVRON CORPORATION, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 4:16-cv-02089-JSW (N.D. Cal.), as a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and to authorize
distribution of judicial notice.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of a collective action for their
claim under the FLSA on behalf of well site/drill site managers,
who were allegedly denied proper compensation as required by
federal wage and hour laws. The Plaintiffs seek certification of
all persons, who have worked for Defendants Chevron Corporation
and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. as Site Managers, who were classified as
independent contractors or consultants and were paid a day rate at
any time within three years of the filing of this action through
the trial.
Judge White also requires the parties to meet and confer regarding
the content and the timing of the proposed judicial notice. The
Court orders that by no later than March 17, 2017, the parties
will submit a mutually-agreed upon notice and schedule.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DMPCmNrq
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Police Pension Fund Suit Hits Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police and Fire Retirement
System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Chicago Bridge and Iron Company N.V.,
Philip K. Asherman, Ronald A. Ballschmiede and Westley S.
Stockton, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01580 (D. Md., March 2,
2017) seeks to recover damages caused by defendants' violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Chicago Bridge provides a range of services, including conceptual
design, technology, engineering, procurement, fabrication,
modularization, construction, commissioning, maintenance, program
management and environmental services, to customers in the energy
infrastructure market throughout the world. Currently, it is a
contractor in the construction and commissioning of two nuclear
power plants being built in Georgia and South Carolina. The
projects' cost overruns and project delays impact the company's
previously reported and future financial performance, thus
resulting in the Company's stock price decline, the Complaint
alleges. Plaintiff invested in its securities and lost
substantially.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Tel: (631) 367-7100
Fax: (631) 367-1173
Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
David C. Walton, Esq.
Trig R. Smith, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Fax: (619) 231-7423
Email: davew@rgrdlaw.com
trigs@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
79 Alfred Street
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: (313) 578-1200
Fax: (313) 578-1201
CHICAGO BRIDGE: May 2 Deadline for Bids to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC on March 8 announced the filing of a class action
lawsuit against Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. ("Chicago Iron"
or the "Company") (NYSE: CBI). Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Chicago Iron shares between October 29, 2013,
and December 10, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm in advance of the May 2, 2017 lead
plaintiff deadline.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Chicago Iron shares and
would like more information regarding the class action lawsuit, we
encourage you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall, of
Goldberg Law PC, 1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
CA 90067, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without cost to
you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com.
Prescience Point claimed that Chicago Iron had illicitly accounted
for its goodwill during 2013 with the intention of hiding losses
related to problems with the Company's Nuclear Projects.
When this information was revealed to investors, the value of
Chicago Iron fell, causing investors harm.
If you have any questions concerning your legal rights, please
immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401, or visit our
website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or email us at
info@goldberglawpc.com.
Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.
CITIZENSHIP OF MARYLAND: "Craighead" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Talia Craighead, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated individuals, v. Full Citizenship Of Maryland, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00595 (D. Md., March 1, 2017) seeks
unpaid overtime wages, plus an equal amount as liquidated damages,
plus court costs, reasonable attorney's fees and expenses,
interest, and any other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law.
Defendant provides support and training services to adult
individuals with disabilities in Prince George's County and
Montgomery County. It also provides consumers with housing.
Ms. Craighead supervised a residence at 11526 Charlton Drive,
Silver Spring, MD 20902, ensuring that the residents took their
medication, that the residence was stocked with food, properly
furnished and was safe.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Zelikovitz, Esq.
DCWAGELAW
519 H Street NW Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 803-6083
Fax: (202) 683-6102
Email: justin@dcwagelaw.com
CLAY ROAD: "Tayum" Suit Seeks Certification of Laborers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MANOLO TAYUM on behalf of himself
individually, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs,
v. CLAY ROAD FURNITURE LLC and FURNITURE 4 EVERYONE LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-03726 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to certify a class of:
"all drivers/manual laborers employed by clay road furniture
LLC, and furniture 4 everyone LLC within the past three years
who were not paid time and a half for overtime hours worked."
The Drivers and Manual Laborers are any and all individuals who
checked trucks, picked up furniture from the warehouse, unloaded
and reloaded trucks, and assembled items in the show rooms for
Defendants' and assembled furniture items in the homes and
businesses of Defendant's customers.
The Plaintiff further asks the Court to Order the following:
1. within 14 days of the entry of this Order, Defendants shall
disclose to Plaintiff's counsel the names, addresses, email
addresses, and telephone numbers of all current and former
Putative Class Members employed within the last three years
from the date the Complaint was filed. This information
shall be provided in a usable electronic format.
2. Plaintiff's counsel shall only use the phone numbers to
confirm the Notice and Consent Forms were received by the
Putative Class Members.
3. Plaintiff is authorized to mail and e-mail Notice and a
reminder Notice after the expiration of 30 days from the
original mailing date.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ifguwYKi
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
CLICKATELL INC: Erdely Sues Over SMS Ads Despite Opt-Out
--------------------------------------------------------
David Erdely, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Clickatell, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01104, (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2017),
seeks actual and statutory damages, an injunction requiring
Defendant to cease all text messaging activity until it fixes its
broken opt-out system and to honor opt-out requests, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and such further and other relief the
Court deems reasonable and just under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Clickatell is a mobile messaging company that purports to help
businesses engage with their customers via SMS or text messaging
services. It has created a platform, which is a fully scalable
communication enabler that allows businesses to SMS-enable any
application, website or system utilizing an automatic telephone
dialling system. Plaintiff expressly "opted-out" or requested not
to receive text messages by responding "STOP" or with similar
commands.
* * *
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that the plaintiff alleges that in November 2016, he suffered
damages from receiving several unwanted text messages from the
defendant soliciting him to purchase phone minutes to make calls
to Cuba. The plaintiff holds Clickatell Inc. responsible because
the defendant allegedly kept on sending unsolicited text messages
to the plaintiff despite opting out of the service.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca Davis, Esq.
Richard T. Drury, Esq.
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
410 12th Street, Suite 250
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 836-4200
Facsimile: (510) 836-4205
Email: richard@lozeaudrury.com
rebecca@lozeaudrury.com
- and -
Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
Patrick H. Peluso
Woodrow & Peluso, LLC
3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, Colorado 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0675
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
CLIFFS NATURAL: Appeal in ERISA Litigation Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Plaintiff's
appeal in the ERISA Litigation remains pending in the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
On May 14, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio captioned Paul Saumer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. et al., No. 1:15-CV-00954. This
action was purportedly brought on behalf of the Northshore and
Silver Bay Power Company Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan") and
certain participants and beneficiaries of the Plan during the
class period, defined in the complaint as April 2, 2012 to the
present, against Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., its investment
committee, Northshore, the Employee Benefits Administration
Department of Northshore, and certain current and former officers.
Plaintiff amended the complaint to name as defendants additional
current and former employees who served on the investment
committee.
The suit alleges that the defendants breached their duties to the
plaintiffs and the Plan in violation of ERISA fiduciary rules by,
among other things, continuing to offer and hold Cliffs Natural
Resources Inc. stock as a Plan investment option during the class
period. The relief sought includes a request for a judgment
ordering the defendants to make good to the Plan all losses to the
Plan resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The
lawsuit has been referred to our insurance carriers.
On April 1, 2016, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the lawsuit. Plaintiff filed an appeal, which is currently pending
in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is a mining and natural resources
company.
CLIFFS NATURAL: Exchange Offer Litigation Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a court has
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Exchange Offer
Litigation.
The Company said, "On March 14, 2016, a putative class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York captioned Waxman et al. v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., No.
1:16-cv-01899. Generally, the lawsuit alleges that the exchange
offers for certain of our existing senior notes announced on
January 27, 2016 violated the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the
"TIA") and breached the indentures governing the senior notes
subject to the exchange offers because the exchange offers were
offered only to certain noteholders that were qualified
institutional buyers ("QIBs") and not to non-QIBs."
"The suit seeks class certification with respect to non-QIB
noteholders of the 5.90% Senior Notes due 2020 and the 6.25%
Senior Notes due 2040 (collectively, the "Class Notes"), which
QIBs were permitted to exchange for newly-issued 1.5 Lien Notes.
Plaintiffs allege that the exchange offers had the effect of
subordinating their Class Notes to those of the QIBs who elected
to exchange their notes and also impaired the Plaintiffs' rights
to receive payment of the principal and interest under the Class
Notes and to institute suit to compel such payment. In addition to
alleged violation of the TIA and breach of contract, Plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages for breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment, and also seek
declaratory judgment that the exchange offers are null and void.
"On May 16, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, which
was granted on December 6, 2016."
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is a mining and natural resources
company.
CLN GROUP: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Lopez, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. CLN Group, LLC and Louis Navarro, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-20854, (S.D. Fla., March 6, 2017), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid straight and overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed as a construction worker for CLN, a general
contractor and construction company based in Miami-Dade.
Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, Florida 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
COLLECTION CONSULTANTS: "Gray" Suit Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Cheyenne Gray, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COLLECTION
CONSULTANTS OF CALIFORNIA, the Defendant, Case No 8:16-cv-02022-
DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an
order granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:
"a. all persons residing in the United States, who, within the
one (1) year preceding the filing of this Complaint, received
collection correspondence from Defendant that failed to
disclose the original creditor"; and
"b. all persons residing in the United States, who, within the
one (1) year preceding the filing of this Complaint, received
collection correspondence from Defendant that stated the
creditor was "YOUR CREDITORS"."
The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment of
Plaintiff as Class Representatives, and for appointment of
Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel.
A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JwzNXxTm
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206 4741
Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
COMENITY LLC: Faces "Stephens" Suit Over Illegal Collection Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Stephens and Christopher Gulley, on behalf of themselves,
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Comenity, LLC
d/b/a Comenity Bank, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00670, (S.D.
Nev., March 6, 2017), seeks damages, injunctive relief and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Defendant Comenity is an Ohio-based corporation which manages
credit programs for various retailers in the U.S. Comenity
routinely contacts alleged debtors through telephone calls with
automatic telephone dialing equipment. When unable to reach the
alleged debtors' registered telephone number, it resorts to
locating new numbers on its own through unreliable skip tracing
methods or through number trapping numbers that usually lacks
express consent to call.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas Gallucci, Esq.
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Backer Law Suit Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned THE BACKER LAW FIRM, LLC, on behalf of
itself and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 4:15-CV-00327-SRB
(W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order:
a. determining that Plaintiff's claim pursuant to Telephone
Consumer Protection Act against Defendant shall be
maintained as a class action with the proposed Plaintiff
class defined as:
"all persons or entities appearing in the List of Class
Members to whom Defendant sent one or more facsimiles
promoting its products, services, or memberships between
April 2, 2011 and April 2, 2015.
Excluded from the class are ABC Business Forms, Inc.,
Defendant and its officers, directors, and employees,
Defendant's counsel, any persons who previously have
settled TCPA claims with Defendant, the Court and Court
personnel, and counsel for the Plaintiff.
b. appointing Plaintiff The Backer Law Firm, LLC as class
representative;
c. appointing Noah K. Wood and Ari N. Rodopoulos of the Wood
Law Firm, LLC as lead class counsel; and
d. any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=X5NlUeya
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari N. Rodopoulos, Esq.
Noah K. Wood, 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
COUSINS SUBMARINES: Assistant Managers Class Certified
------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Pamela Pepper entered an order in the lawsuit styled
AMANDA NUCHELL, the Plaintiff, v. COUSINS SUBMARINES, INC., d/b/a
COUSINS SUBS, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00232-PP (E.D.
Wisc.), granting in part Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification and court-authorized notice of:
"all current and former hourly Assistant Managers who have
worked at the 530 W. Sunset Drive Waukesha, Wisconsin, 10716
W. Oklahoma Avenue, West Allis, Wisconsin, and/or 8538 W.
Brown Deer Road, Milwaukee, Wisconsin location(s) of Cousins
Submarines, Inc. d/b/a Cousins Subs location at any time since
[3 years prior to the date of this notice being sent] and who
were paid on an hourly basis".
The court also:
1. approved the notice of right to join lawsuit form,
conditioned upon the plaintiff making the modifications
described in the order;
2. appointed the firm of Hawks, Quindel, S.C. as collective
action counsel; and
3. directed the Defendant, within 10 days of the date of
the order, to identify and produce to Plaintiff's
counsel the first name, last name, last-known street
address, city, state, zip code, phone number, and dates of
employment, of all persons who were employed at the Sunset
Drive, Oklahoma Avenue, and/or Northridge restaurants at
any time since August 5, 2013.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gkEu0b78
CSX INTERMODAL: Seeks Dismissal of Truck Drivers' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports that transportation giant
CSX asked a California federal judge on March 7 to toss a putative
class action alleging its truck drivers have been misclassified as
independent contractors, arguing at a hearing that the complaints
about breaks, wages and reimbursements are preempted by the
Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act and federal
truth-in-leasing regulations.
The truck drivers allege the company has used their status as
independent contractors to violate California labor statutes by
not providing state-mandated meal and rest breaks, not paying
minimum wage and failing to compensate drivers.
The case is Valadez et al v. CSX Intermodal Terminal, Case No.
3:15-cv-05433 in Northern California.
CYNOSURE INC: "Bird" Suit Contests Merger Deal, Seeks More Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Bird, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cynosure, Inc., Michael R. Davin, William
O. Flannery, Brian M. Barefoot, Ettore V. Biagioni, Marina
Hatsopoulos and Thomas H. Robinson, Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-00212
(D. Del., February 28, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and
permanently enjoin defendants from consummating and/or closing the
acquisition of Cynosure by Hologic, rescissory damages, reasonable
allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Cynosure and Hologic announced that they had entered into a plan
of merger dated February 14, 2017 to sell Cynosure to Hologic for
$66.00 per share in cash where the deal is approximately $1.44
billion. Plaintiffs allege that this deal was brokered without the
proper disclosure of the details of such transaction for the
shareholder to make an informed decision and vote on it.
Cynosure develops, manufactures and markets aesthetic treatment
systems that enable plastic surgeons, dermatologists and other
medical practitioners to perform non-invasive and minimally
invasive procedures. It also markets radiofrequency energy sourced
medical devices for precision surgical applications such as facial
plastic and general surgery, gynecology, ear, nose and throat
procedures, ophthalmology, and oral and maxillofacial surgery.
Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 971-1341
Facsimile: (212) 601-2610
- and -
James R. Banko, Esq.
Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
20 Montchanin Rd., Suite 145
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 482-3182
Fax: (302) 482-3612
CYNOSURE INC: Calin Contests Shadowy Merger Deal, Seeks More Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Calin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Michael R. Davin, Brian M. Barefoot,
Ettore V. Biagioni, William O. Flannery, Marina Hatsopoulos,
Thomas H. Robinson, Hologic, Inc. and Minuteman Merger Sub, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10349, (D. Mass., March 1, 2017),
seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from
consummating and/or closing the acquisition of Cynosure by
Hologic, rescissory damages, reasonable allowance for attorneys'
and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Cynosure and Hologic announced that they had entered into a plan
of merger dated February 14, 2017 to sell Cynosure to Hologic for
$66.00 per share in cash where the deal is approximately $1.44
billion. Plaintiffs allege that this deal was brokered without the
proper disclosure of the details of such transaction for the
shareholder to make an informed decision and vote on it. Officers
and directors allegedly stood to receive large sums of cash for
their shares, stock options, restricted stock units and
performance stock units.
Cynosure develops, manufactures and markets aesthetic treatment
systems that enable plastic surgeons, dermatologists and other
medical practitioners to perform non-invasive and minimally
invasive procedures. It also markets radiofrequency energy sourced
medical devices for precision surgical applications such as facial
plastic and general surgery, gynecology, ear, nose and throat
procedures, ophthalmology, and oral and maxillofacial surgery.
Michael R. Davin, Brian M. Barefoot, Ettore V. Biagioni, William
O. Flannery, Marina Hatsopoulos and Thomas H. Robinson are members
of the Cynosure board.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
Ashling M. Soares, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
733 Summer Street, Suite 304
Stamford, CT 06901
Tel: (203) 992-4523
Fax: (212) 363-7171
DEJA VU SHOWGIRLS: "Lowney" Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Minimum Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawna Lowney, indivdually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Deja Vu Consulting, Inc., DV Saginaw, LLC,
Deja Vu Showgirls, Deja Vu Showgirls of Tampa, LC and Mark
Figueroa, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00535 (M.D. Fla., March 6,
2017) seeks to recover unpaid back wages, minimum wages, overtime
wages, an additional equal amount of liquidated damages, obtain
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs and a
claim for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants operate under the trade name Deja Vu Showgirls where
Garcia worked as an exotic dancer. She claims her only
compensation was tips from patrons.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donna V. Smith, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
1110 N Florida Ave. Ste. 300
Tampa, FL 33602-3343
Tel: (813) 224-0431
Fax: (813) 229-8712
Email: dsmith@wfclaw.com
DOCUMENT GROUP: Vaughn Seeks to Certify Manual Laborers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled EUGENE VAUGHN on behalf of
himself individually, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. THE
DOCUMENT GROUP, Case No. 4:16-cv-03578 (S.D. Tex.), seeks
conditional certification of a collective action consisting of,
and judicially approved notice to, the following individuals:
"ALL MANUAL LABORERS AND SCANNER OPERATORS EMPLOYED BY THE
DOCUMENT GROUP WITHIN THE PAST THREE YEARS."
Eugene Vaughn filed the lawsuit to recover alleged unpaid overtime
wages owed to current and former Manual Laborers and Scanner
Operators employed by the Defendant during the past three years.
He alleges that the Defendant misclassified him and all other
Manual Laborers and Scanner Operators as exempt from the overtime
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
In order to facilitate the purposes of the FLSA's collective
action provisions, the Court should authorize a Court-approved
notice to be issued by the Plaintiff to potential plaintiffs, Mr.
Vaughn asserts. He explains that such a notice will allow those
employees, whose rights are eroding each day, to be informed of
the action and their right to join.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=idJxoPA1
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
DOLE FOOD: Court Approves Merger-Related Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Remsen Kinne, Esq., and Eryn F. Correa, Esq., of K&L Gates, in an
article for The National Law Review, report that in In re Dole
Food Company, Inc., Stockholders Litigation, the Court of Chancery
granted a motion for leave to modify a settlement agreement in a
merger-related class action suit to distribute settlement proceeds
through DTC to Dole Food Company, Inc. ("Dole") common
stockholders of record. The Court held that the original
stipulation providing for settlement proceeds to be distributed to
both record holders and beneficial holders through a traditional
notices and claims forms process proved to be too costly and
burdensome in practice, which justified modifying the allocation
procedure.
In re Dole Food Company, Inc. arose out of a going-private
transaction Dole completed through a single-step merger on
November 1, 2013. The merger proceeds were distributed to the
stockholders of record, including Cede & Co., the nominee of the
Depository Trust Company ("DTC"). Shortly following the merger, a
class of Dole common stockholders sued Dole fiduciaries in a case
that settled for consideration of $2.74 per share plus interest.
The parties to the class action entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, under which all record holders and
beneficial owners of common stock of Dole between June 11, 2013
and November 1, 2013, the day of the closing of the merger, were
to receive a payment of $2.74 per share plus interest. After
excluding the defendants, the class of stockholders entitled to
this consideration held in the aggregate a total of 36,793,758
outstanding shares of Dole common stock. This settlement was
approved by the court and the aggregate settlement proceeds amount
was paid by defendants to the Settlement Administrator.
A.B. Data served as Settlement Administrator and mailed notices
and claims forms to potential class members, brokers and other
nominees. Through this process, A.B. Data received facially
eligible claims from holders whose completed claims forms
indicated record and beneficial ownership of a total of 49,164,415
shares. This exceeded the total number of shares entitled to
receive settlement proceeds by 12,370,654 shares. A.B. Data and
class counsel's efforts to solve the discrepancy with DTC revealed
that due to short-selling and a high volume of trade in the three
days before the merger closed, it would be nearly impossible to
determine who owned the shares as of closing in a practical or
cost-effective manner. Class counsel therefore moved for leave to
modify the allocation procedure of settlement proceeds so that
instead of the claims process, the proceeds would be distributed
through DTC, using the same payment mechanism that was used to
distribute the merger consideration.
The Court of Chancery reviewed the motion for leave to modify the
settlement as a request to modify the plan of allocation for good
cause shown. The Court of Chancery explained that a plan of
allocation must be reasonable but, according to Delaware law, a
plan does not have to compensate all potential claimants equally
in order to be reasonable. The Court pointed out that although the
original plan sought to allocate consideration among all holders
of Dole common stock, this allocation would not have achieved pro
rata distribution among all class members but rather, only those
class members that made claims. The Court thus determined that
allocating the settlement proceeds among only the record holders
in the same way the merger proceeds were allocated would be the
better solution because it was fair, cost-efficient and consistent
with Delaware law.
In its reasoning the Court indicated that distributing settlement
proceeds only to record holders would be consistent with Delaware
law in that Delaware corporations generally are required only to
recognize record stockholders and are not required to determine
beneficial stockholders, even in settlements. The Court also
referred to the property rights in Dole shares held by the record
holders at the time of the merger as a basis for the claims
underlying the class action settlement agreement. The Court
concluded that consideration paid in settlement of such class
action claims could be viewed as additional merger consideration
that the class should have received pursuant to the merger.
EMERY FEDERAL: Palombaro Moves to Certify Class of U.S. Borrowers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled FRANK A. AND SHELLY
PALOMBARO, JR., et al. v. EMERY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No.
1:15-cv-00792-SJD-KLL (S.D. Ohio), file with the Court their
second amended motion for class certification. They move to
certify the "Emery Class":
All individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a
federally related mortgage loan (as defined under the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. Section 2602)
originated or brokered by Emery Federal Credit Union for
which Genuine Title provided a settlement service, as
identified in Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1, between
January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014. Exempted from this
class is any person who, during the period of January 1,
2009, through December 31, 2014, was an employee, officer,
member and/or agent of Defendant Emery Federal Credit Union,
Genuine Title, LLC, Brandon Glickstein, Inc., Competitive
Advantage Media Group LLC, and/or Dog Days Marketing, LLC.
The Emery Class are victims of the same illegal kickback scheme,
suffered the same injuries, have identical claims against Emery
and are entitled to the same statutory measure of damages, the
Plaintiffs contend.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PKf6bKDY
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory M. Utter, Esq.
KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLL
One East 4th Street, Suite 1400
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 579-6540
Facsimile: (513) 579-6457
E-mail: gmutter@kmklaw.com
- and -
Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE
6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
Greenbelt, MD 20770
Telephone: (301) 220-2200
Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
- and -
Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
Melissa L. English, Esq.
SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
Towson, MD 21204
Telephone: (410) 821-0070
Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
EPATIENTS.COM INC: Status Hearing in "Gress" Suit on April 18
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Milton I. Shadur grants the Plaintiff's motion to
enter and continue submitted in the lawsuit captioned DR. WILLIAM
P. GRESS, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined
herein v. EPATIENTS.COM, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01119 (N.D. Ill.).
The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
continued to April 18, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. Status hearing is set
for April 18, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TateiNzK
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Boren Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned JAMES BOREN and KELLI
JANCZEWSKI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:16-
cv-10957 (N.D. Ill.), move the Court for an order certifying two
Classes and Subclasses defined as:
Class 1: All consumers in the United States of America,
beginning two years prior to filing this Complaint
and continuing through the resolution of this action,
(i) who have received an Order of Discharge,
discharging certain debts in a bankruptcy case; (ii)
whose credit file maintained by Experian does not
reflect that certain debts have been discharged by an
Order of Discharge entered in a bankruptcy case;
(iii) who have disputed information contained in a
credit file maintained by Experian by mail, internet,
or phone, on that basis; and (iv) whose credit files
were not corrected after Experian received those
disputes.
Illinois Subclass 1: All consumers in Illinois, beginning two
years prior to filing this Complaint and continuing
through the resolution of this action, (i) who have
received an Order of Discharge, discharging certain
debts in a bankruptcy case; (ii) whose credit file
maintained by Experian does not reflect that certain
debts have been discharged by an Order of Discharge
entered in a bankruptcy case; (iii) who have disputed
information contained in a credit file maintained by
Experian by mail, internet, or phone, on that basis;
and (iv) whose credit files were not corrected after
Experian received those disputes.
Class 2: All consumers in the United States of America,
beginning two years prior to filing this Complaint
and continuing through the resolution of this action,
(i) who have received an Order of Discharge,
discharging certain debts in a bankruptcy case; (ii)
whose credit file maintained by Experian does not
reflect that certain debts have been discharged by an
Order of Discharge entered in a bankruptcy case;
(iii) who have disputed information contained in a
credit file maintained by Experian by mail, internet,
or phone, on that basis; (iv) whose credit files were
not corrected within 3 business days after Experian
received those disputes; and (v) whose information
and notice of dispute were not forwarded to the
furnishers of the disputed information.
Illinois Subclass 2: All consumers in Illinois, beginning two
years prior to filing this Complaint and continuing
through the resolution of this action, (i) who have
received an Order of Discharge, discharging certain
debts in a bankruptcy case; (ii) whose credit file
maintained by Experian does not reflect that certain
debts have been discharged by an Order of Discharge
entered in a bankruptcy case; (iii) who have disputed
information contained in a credit file maintained by
Experian by mail, internet, or phone, on that basis;
(iv) whose credit files were not corrected within 3
business days after Experian received those disputes;
and (v) whose information and notice of dispute were
not forwarded to the furnishers of the disputed
information.
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives, and to appoint their counsel as Class Counsel.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p0bf92kl
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
matt@attorneyzim.com
- and -
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
Ahmad T. Sulaiman, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
900 Jorie Blvd., Suite 150
Oak Brook, IL 60523
Telephone: (630) 575-8181
Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
FEMALE HEALTH: "Glotzer" Class Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
The Female Health Company continues to defend the class action
lawsuit by Martin Glotzer, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 9, 2017, for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2016.
On or about October 21, 2016, a shareholder, Martin Glotzer, filed
a purported derivative and class action complaint on behalf of
himself and the public shareholders of the Company in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, captioned Glotzer v. The Female
Health Company, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-13815. An amended
complaint names as defendants the Company, the members of the
Company's board of directors prior to the closing of the APP
Merger and the members of the Company's board of directors after
the closing of the APP Merger. The amended complaint alleges,
among other things, that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets in connection with
the APP Merger. Based on these allegations, the complaint seeks
equitable relief, including rescinding the APP Merger and
enjoining the Company's board of directors from taking action in
furtherance of the APP Merger, damages on behalf of the Company
and costs and expenses of the litigation, including attorneys'
fees.
On December 9, 2016, the defendants filed to remove the action to
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, and on December 16, 2016, the action was remanded back
to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Company
believes that this action is without merit and is vigorously
defending itself.
The Female Health Company is a pharmaceutical and medical device
company, with an initial focus on the development and
commercialization of pharmaceuticals for men's and women's health
and oncology that qualify for the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) 505(b)(2) accelerated regulatory approval
pathway as well as the 505 (b)(1) pathway. The Company also has a
Consumer Health and Medical Devices Division and Global Public
Health Sector Division. The Company does business as both "Veru
Healthcare" and "The Female Health Company."
On October 31, 2016, as part of the Company's strategy to
diversify its product line to mitigate the risks of being a single
product company, the Company completed a merger transaction (the
APP Merger) with Aspen Park Pharmaceuticals, Inc. APP is a
company focused on the development and commercialization of
pharmaceutical and consumer health products for men's and women's
health and oncology.
FEMALE HEALTH: "Schartz" Class Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
The Female Health Company continues to defend the derivative and
class action complaint by Brian C. Schartz in state court, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2016.
On or about November 4, 2016, a shareholder, Brian C. Schartz,
filed a purported derivative and class action complaint on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated shareholders of the
Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, captioned
Schartz v. Parrish, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-14488. The lawsuit
names as defendants the Company, the members of the Company's
board of directors prior to the closing of the APP Merger and the
members of the Company's board of directors after the closing of
the APP Merger. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by
consummating the APP Merger in violation of the Wisconsin Business
Corporation Law and by causing FHC to disseminate to its
shareholders press releases and SEC filings containing materially
false and misleading statements. Based on these allegations, the
complaint seeks equitable relief, including enjoining the
Company's board of directors from taking action in furtherance of
the APP Merger, damages on behalf of FHC and costs and expenses of
the litigation, including attorneys' fees.
On November 18, 2016, the defendants filed to remove the action to
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, and on December 14, 2016, the action was remanded back
to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Company
believes that this action is without merit and is vigorously
defending itself.
The Female Health Company is a pharmaceutical and medical device
company, with an initial focus on the development and
commercialization of pharmaceuticals for men's and women's health
and oncology that qualify for the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) 505(b)(2) accelerated regulatory approval
pathway as well as the 505 (b)(1) pathway. The Company also has a
Consumer Health and Medical Devices Division and Global Public
Health Sector Division. The Company does business as both "Veru
Healthcare" and "The Female Health Company."
On October 31, 2016, as part of the Company's strategy to
diversify its product line to mitigate the risks of being a single
product company, the Company completed a merger transaction (the
APP Merger) with Aspen Park Pharmaceuticals, Inc. APP is a
company focused on the development and commercialization of
pharmaceutical and consumer health products for men's and women's
health and oncology.
FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE: Dye Seeks Preliminary Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JOHN DYE, JR., Individually
and on behalf of a class of persons v. FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE
COMPANY, Case No. 1:15-cv-12820 (S.D. W.Va.), asks the Court to
preliminarily approve the parties' proposed settlement agreement,
and to direct the parties to carry out their obligations pursuant
to the Settlement Agreement.
Mr. Dye also asks the Court to adopt this proposed schedule, the
Court's calendar permitting, for completion of remaining tasks:
a. Class Notice Mailed: 14 days after preliminary approval;
b. Objection/Exclusion Date: 30 days after the mailing of
class notice;
c. Final Approval Submissions: 14 days after
objection/exclusion date; and
d. Final Approval Hearing: approximately 30 days after final
approval submissions.
Fifth Third does not oppose the Motion.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UmgbwDbd
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Ralph C. Young, Esq.
Christopher B. Frost, Esq.
Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq.
Jed R. Nolan, Esq.
HAMILTON, BURGESS,
YOUNG & POLLARD, P.L.L.C.
P.O. Box 959
Fayetteville, WV 25840
Telephone: (304) 574-2727
Facsimile: (304) 574-3709
E-mail: ryoung@hamiltonburgess.com
cfrost@hamiltonburgess.com
sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com
jnolan@hamiltonburgess.com
The Defendant is represented by:
W. Henry Jernigan, Jr., Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
900 Lee Street, Suite 600
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 357-0901
Facsimile: (304) 357-0919
E-mail: henry.jernigan@dinslaw.com
- and -
J. H. Mahaney, Esq.
T. Matthew Lockhart, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
611 Third Avenue
Huntington, WV 25701
Telephone: (304) 691-8317
Facsimile: (304) 522-4312
E-mail: john.mahaney@dinsmore.com
matt.lockhart@dinsmore.com
FINE WINES AND SPIRITS: Faces "Leach" Suit Over Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Kristopher Leach and Bryan Freeland, Individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fine Wines and
Spirits of North Texas, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00154,
(E. Tex., March 2, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages and unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, lost wages and
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees,
court costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Fine Wines and Spirits of North Texas LLC (Fine Wine) is a beer,
wine, and liquor retailer with its principal place of business
located at 11325 Seven Locks Road, Potomac, Maryland, 20854.
Defendant allegedly did not pay Plaintiffs for all time worked but
instead, automatically deducted a lunch break that they did not
take. When Leach and Freeland questioned this practice, Defendant
fired them for pre-textual reasons.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. Scott, Esq.
Javier Perez, Esq.
SCOTT PEREZ LLP
Founders Square
900 Jackson Street, Suite 550
Dallas, Texas 75202
Tel: (214) 965-9675
Fax: (214) 965-9680
Email: matt.scott@scottperezlaw.com
javier.perez@scottperezlaw.com
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Caldera Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Caldera, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Firstsource Advantage LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 5:17-cv-00402, (C.D. Cal., March 2, 2017), seeks actual
damages, statutory damages for willful and negligent violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such other and
further relief as may be just and proper.
Firstsource Advantage is debt collection company engaged, by use
of the mails and telephone, in the business of collecting a debt
from the Plaintiff. Defendant used an automatic telephone dialling
system to place its daily calls to Plaintiff seeking to collect
the alleged debt owed. Defendant did not have Caldera's prior
express consent to receive calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial or pre-recorded voice on his
cellular telephone.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: 877-206-4741
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
FISHER HOMES: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Ayala" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Alfred H. Bennett granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification and for notice to putative class members
filed in the lawsuit entitled Juan Carlos Ayala, et al. v. Fisher
Homes of Texas, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-03494 (S.D. Tex.).
Mr. Ayala brought the lawsuit on behalf of former employees of the
Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. He alleges
that he and potential opt-in plaintiffs were paid straight time,
instead of time and a half for overtime work.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BeRUceRS
FKG OIL: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Madison Record, reports that a
disabled man is suing Motormart, alleging he experiences
unnecessary difficulties when visiting the convenience store.
Demauron Davis and Access Now, Inc., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a complaint on Feb. 28, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
against FKG Oil Company, doing business as Motomart, alleging the
convenience store violated the American Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Davis has
visited the defendant's stores but experienced unnecessary
difficulty. Mr. Davis alleges the parking lots are inaccessible,
having excessive slopes with lack of accessible signage and
impermissibly narrow aisles, which added great discomfort to
disabled invitees.
The plaintiffs allege the defendant failed to remove architectural
barriers, failed to design and construct places that are readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities and
failed to maintain features of public accommodations that are
required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with
disabilities.
The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek declaratory
judgment, an order certifying the class proposed by plaintiffs,
costs of suit, attorney's fees and other relief the court deems
just, equitable and appropriate.
They are represented by Matthew H. Armstrong of Armstrong Law Firm
LLC in St. Louis and Benjamin J. Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com
-- and Stephanie Goldin -- sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com -- of Carlson
Lynch Sweet, Kilpela and Carpenter LLP in Floor Pittsburgh, Pa.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number 3:17-cv-00217
FLINT, MI: May Need Two Years to Be Able to Treat Own Water
-----------------------------------------------------------
CNN reports that Flint has been mired in a devastating water
crisis for nearly three years, and it may be another two before
it's resolved.
Mayor Karen Weaver wrote to EPA officials to inform them that the
Michigan city will not be able to treat its own water for lead and
other contaminants until 2019, citing a lengthy construction and
testing process for a new water treatment plant.
"To expedite completion of the project and minimize cost, a
design/build project delivery method is proposed," Ms. Weaver
wrote. "Based on this approach, an August, 2019, completion date
is anticipated for the treatment plant improvements."
In 2014, officials implemented a cost-cutting plan to switch the
city's water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River, which is
19 times more corrosive, according to researchers from Virginia
Tech. That caused lead to leach from pipes and into the city's
drinking water.
'Why is the water brown?'
Soon after the switch, the water started to look, smell and taste
odd. Residents said it also looked dirty.
"The water would come in brown and my daughter was like 'Mom . . .
why is the water brown?,'" Flint resident Rhonda Keslo told CNN
last year.
The EPA intervened in 2016, following studies that revealed
dangerous levels of lead in the city's drinking water and a class-
action lawsuit alleging that the Department of Environmental
Quality wasn't treating the Flint River with an anti-corrosive
agent.
The EPA enacted a Safe Drinking Water Emergency Order, which
allowed it to more closely monitor and control the state and local
response efforts in Flint. These efforts include rerouting the
water supply, replacing corroded water pipes and distributing
bottled water and filters.
The EPA's oversight requires that Ms. Weaver keeps the federal
government abreast of developments in its plan to restore clean
drinking water to the city. The federal agency has not yet
publicly responded to the letter.
Lead levels below federal limit
The EPA has also required that the city receive public input on
its final water source and treatment plan. The current proposed
long-term water source is Lake Huron, according to Ms. Weaver's
letter. But the city will announce its final decision in April.
The city will also select a backup water source for use in
emergencies.
Flint currently relies on water from Detroit's Great Lakes Water
Authority. The city's agreement with Great Lakes Water Authority,
which also draws its water from Lake Huron, is set to expire
during this summer, according to documents filed with the EPA.
Since federal intervention, Flint's lead contamination has
reportedly dropped. A six-month study by the Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality revealed in January that lead levels in
Flint's water supply had fallen below the federal limit. However,
many residents still rely on bottled water, and the state still
recommends that residents use filtered water for cooking and
drinking.
"Nothing's changed, except the attention has died off," Flint
resident Delano Whidbee told CNN in October.
FOFO'S TOY: Class Certification Sought in Morgan & Curtis Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MORGAN & CURTIS ASSOCIATES,
INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
FOFO'S TOY INC. D/B/A THE EMPORIUM, Case No. 2:17-cv-01032-LDW-ARL
(E.D.N.Y.), moves for class certification of three proposed
classes pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Morgan & Curtis also asks the Court to take 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.
A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PbxMmyaI
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
85 Miles Avenue
White Plains, NY 10606
Telephone: (914) 358-5345
Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com
FONTEM US: Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration Held
-----------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the trial court
scheduled a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration
for February 13, 2017, in the case, Fontem US, Inc. Consumer Class
Action Litig.
In In re Fontem US, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litig. (U.S.D.C.
C.D. Cal., filed 2015), the plaintiffs brought a class action
against RAI, Lorillard, another RAI affiliate, and two other
defendants on behalf of putative classes of California, New York,
and Illinois purchasers of blu brand e-cigarettes. This action
results from the consolidation of two actions - Diek v. Lorillard
Tobacco Co. and Whitney v. ITG Brands, LLC. The plaintiffs allege
that certain advertising, marketing and packaging materials for
blu brand e-cigarettes made deceptive claims, omitted material
information, or failed to contain required disclosures.
On behalf of one or more of the classes, the plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, equitable relief, and compensatory and punitive
damages under California Civil Code Sec.1,750 et seq., California
Business & Professions Code Sec.17,200 et seq., California
Business and Professions Code Sec.17,500 et seq., New York General
Business Law Sec. 349, and Illinois Consumer Fraud And Deceptive
Business Practices Act Sec. 505/1 et seq.
Pursuant to the terms of the asset purchase agreement relating to
the Divestiture, RAI tendered the defense of the now-consolidated
Diek and Whitney actions to, and sought indemnification for those
actions from, ITG. Pursuant to the terms, limitations and
conditions of the asset purchase agreement relating to the
Divestiture, ITG agreed to defend and indemnify RAI and its
affiliates against losses arising from the operation of the blu
brand e-cigarette business.
On May 20, 2016, the trial court stayed the matter pending the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' rulings in Briseno v. ConAgra
Foods, Inc. (decided January 3, 2017), Jones v. ConAgra Foods,
Inc. (pending), and Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC (decided
September 30, 2016). The stay did not apply to finalizing the
pleadings and related briefing.
On May 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint, which the defendants moved to dismiss. On
November 1, 2016, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss in substantial part, finding that federal law preempted
all of the plaintiffs' claims except those based on alleged
violations of California's Proposition 65 under California's
Business and Professions Code Sec.17,200 et seq.
On November 21, 2016, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of
the trial court's November 1, 2016 order. The trial court
scheduled a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration
for February 13, 2017.
FORD MOTOR: June 11, 2018 Hearing Set in Powershift Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Schafer, writing for Springfield News, reports that
Julie Zawila is so scared to drive her "lemon" Ford Focus that she
covers it in signs to warn other motorists.
The Springfield Lakes mum is one of more than 7000 Ford owners who
have complained about a faulty PowerShift transmission that
allegedly caused the cars to shudder and stall unexpectedly.
Ms Zawila said despite having a new clutch installed last month,
her car still shudders, cannot find second gear, and has stalled
three times at lights and roundabouts.
She said problems with the "lemon car" rattled her nerves so badly
at one point that she was forced to pull over, shaking and in
tears.
"These vehicles need to be taken off our roads and crushed," she
said.
"They are absolute lemons and will be a danger to everyone as long
as they are on the roads."
Ford's PowerShift transmission is in 22 different models of 2011-
15 Fiesta, Focus and EcoSport.
The technology is designed to drive like an automatic but has the
features of a manual gearbox.
About 1500 disgruntled customers are currently suing Ford,
alleging cars with the technology are not of acceptable quality,
as defined under Australian Consumer Law.
The final hearing of the class action lawsuit, filed by Bannister
Law, will begin on June 11, 2018.
The action seeks refunds or the difference between the purchase
price and the true value of the vehicles, as well as aggravated
damages.
More than 70,000 allegedly dodgy cars could be affected.
Ms Zawila is not a party to the class action but is in
negotiations with her local Ford dealer and the Queensland Civil
and Administrative Tribunal.
She purchased her car secondhand for $18,393 just over a year ago.
"I'm going for a full refund on the thing," she said.
A spokesman for Ford Australia said the company was working to
assist customers.
"If any customer is experiencing potential problems with their
vehicle, they should contact their dealer or contact Ford
Australia directly for assistance," he said.
He said potentially affected vehicles have had the warranty
extended on the clutch and transmission input shaft seals as well
as the transmission software calibration.
A Fix our Ford Focus and Fiestas!! Facebook group has over 1200
members.
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Burrell Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Burrell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Frontier Communications
Corporation, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01680, (C.D. Cal., March 1, 2017),
seeks injunctive relief, statutory and treble damages in
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Frontier Communications Corporation is a national communications
company. Defendant contacted Plaintiff on her cellular telephone
in an attempt to solicit Defendant's products using an automatic
telephone dialling system. Plaintiff explicitly requested that
Defendant cease calling Plaintiff and that Defendant place
Plaintiff on their internal do-not-call list. Despite the
aforementioned requests, Frontier continued to call Plaintiff for
the purpose of marketing and solicitation.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: friedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
GAITHER TECHNOLOGIES: Holt Healthcare Moves to Certify 3 Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the action entitled HOLT HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., on
behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v.
GAITHER TECHNOLOGIES STC, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01334 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action. The
Plaintiff defines the classes as:
For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff
seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons (b)
who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this
action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on
behalf of defendant Gaither Technologies STC, LLC, promoting
their goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a
compliant opt out notice. By "compliant opt out notice" is
meant one (i) on the first page of the fax (ii) that states
that the recipient may make a request to the sender not to
send any future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone
facsimile machine (iii) that states that failure to comply,
within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by the
Federal Communications Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that
provides instructions on how to submit an opt out request and
(v) that includes a domestic contact telephone and facsimile
machine number and a cost-free mechanism for the recipient to
transmit such a request to the sender that permit a request to
be made at any time on any day of the week.
For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to
represent a class consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or
after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28
U.S.C. Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of
defendant Gaither Technologies STC, LLC, promoting their goods
or services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt
out notice.
For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion and Count IV,
alleging trespass to chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a
class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers
(b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of
this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant
Gaither Technologies STC, LLC, promoting their goods or
services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt
out notice.
The Plaintiff further asks that it be appointed class
representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
be appointed counsel for the class.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kTzqbZzc
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
James O. Latturner, Esq.
Dulijaza Clark, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 739-4200
Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
ccombs@edcombs.com
jlatturner@edcombs.com
jclark@edcombs.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Must Face Chevy Cruze Emissions Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Chevy
Cruze emissions lawsuit will continue after U.S. District Judge
Thomas L. Ludington denied in part GM's motion to dismiss the
complaint that alleges 2014 Chevrolet Cruze cars are equipped with
illegal emissions defeat devices.
The 442-page class-action lawsuit alleges General Motors installed
emissions "defeat devices" in the 2014 Chevrolet Cruze diesel cars
which results in illegal nitrogen oxide emissions. Owners claim
they paid about $2,000 more for the "clean diesel" cars compared
to the cost of gasoline models, believing the cars wouldn't harm
the environment.
The alleged defeat device keeps emissions levels within legal
standards when the car is being tested in lab conditions. But the
plaintiffs say once those cars are back on the roads in the hands
of consumers, the nitrogen oxide levels go above legal limits.
According to the plaintiffs, one study conducted for the Dutch
Ministry of Infrastructure showed real-world testing indicated the
General Motors Opel, a car very similar to the Cruze, emits
nitrogen oxide levels higher than in lab tests and higher than
European standards.
The plaintiffs also allege they have tested the Chevrolet Cruze by
using a "Portable Emissions Measurement System" that revealed the
Cruze was non-compliant with U.S. emissions standards during
highway driving (especially speeds over 70 miles per hour), stop-
and-go driving, temperatures below 50 degrees Fahrenheit and
temperatures over 85 degrees Fahrenheit.
The lawsuit alleges if GM is forced to alter the 2014 Chevrolet
Cruze cars to make them compliant with U.S. emissions standards,
the cars will no longer perform as they did when purchased and as
advertised and the value will be diminished. In addition, the
plaintiffs argue they will be forced to pay more for fuel.
General Motors argues there is nothing wrong with the emissions
systems in the Cruze diesel cars and the vehicles comply with all
regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency and the
California Air Resources Board. In addition, the automaker argues
the plaintiffs have not alleged any facts which show that GM had
exclusive knowledge of the defeat device or actively concealed
such a device.
However, the judge said the plaintiffs do have grounds to allege
GM installed a defeat device on the Cruise and the only plausible
purpose for a device is the give the appearance of low emissions.
The judge ruled that if GM were not attempting to deceive
consumers regarding the level of emissions produced by the Cruze,
the alleged "defeat device" would not exist, which is enough to
allege active concealment.
Further, if a defeat device exists, GM had exclusive knowledge of
the device which was clearly meant to be secret and the automaker
cannot reasonably argue that owners could have discovered the
device's existence prior to purchasing the car.
The judge dismissed breach of contract claims without prejudice, a
clear win for GM. But false advertising and fraud claims were not
dismissed and the lawsuit will carry to the discovery phase.
The Chevy Cruze emissions lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court Eastern District Of Michigan -- Jason Counts, Donald Klein,
Oscar Zamora, Brandon J. Stone, Jason Silveus, John Miskelly,
Thomas Hayduk, Joshua Hurst and Joshua Rodriguez, v. General
Motors LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
GEORGIA: Implements Final Changes to Child Welfare System
---------------------------------------------------------
Open Minds reports that the Georgia Division of Family and
Children Services (DFCS) began implementing the final changes to
the state's child welfare system to exit the 2005 Kenny A. Consent
Decree. The Georgia Department of Human Services (DHS) and the
plaintiffs, Children's Rights, filed a modified Consent Decree and
Exit Plan on November 8, 2016, and it was approved on December 5,
2016 by Thomas W. Thrash, United States District Judge. The Kenny
A. class-action lawsuit was filed in 2002 on behalf of children in
foster care in Fulton and DeKalb counties (the Atlanta metro area.
GLOBAL CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Guthrie" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Guthrie moves the Court to certify a class in the matter
entitled Stephen Guthrie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., a Delaware
corporation and Velocity Investments, LLC, a New Jersey limited
liability company, Case No. 1:17-cv-01390 (N.D. Ill.).
The Plaintiff's complaint, filed on February 23, 2017, sets forth
that the Defendants' form debt collection letter, attempting to
collect a time-barred debt, violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Mr. Guthrie further asks that briefing on the Motion be stayed
pending discovery as to class issues, such as net worth and
numerosity. He asserts that he is filing the Motion now to avoid
an individual "buy-off" settlement payment to him only, which
could potentially wipe out the Class' claims.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hbISTJhu
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Philipps, Esq.
Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
Palos Hills, IL 60465
Telephone: (708) 974-2900
Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
mephilipps@aol.com
angiekrobertson@aol.com
- and -
Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq.
BOND, BOTES, SYKSTUS, TANNER & EZZELL, P.C.
225 Pratt Avenue
Huntsville, AL 35801
Telephone: (256) 539-9899
Facsimile: (256) 713-0237
E-mail: Rsykstus@bondnbotes.com
http://www.bondnbotes.com
GROVETOWN, GA: Settles Class Action Over Water Bill Overcharges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Campbell, writing for WJBF-TV, reports that a class action
lawsuit against the city of Grovetown has been settled and now
folks are finding out how to get paid.
The lawsuit is regarding residents being overcharged for water,
allegedly at the hands of former City Clerk Vicki Capetillo.
Before the lawsuit, Frank Wilson said he was blind to the fact
that his business was paying too much for water use.
"All I knew was that it kept going up," said Mr. Wilson.
Now, Attorney Jeff Peil, who was part of the suit, says every
resident is getting a piece of the settlement pie.
"All the citizens should be receiving a postcard in the mail that
has a unique code. You use that code at
http://www.grovetownwatersettlement.comand it will tell them how
much they'll be eligible for," said Mr. Peil.
Residents are getting back different amounts and Mr. Peil says
there's a reason for that. and it's all based upon water bills.
"We said you're going to receive 32% of whatever the 2015 water
bill was at the residence where you currently reside," said
Mr. Peil.
Why the 32% payout?
"It was impossible to figure out exactly how much was being over
billed. We pegged it at $1.6 million and settled for $1.5 million
and the 32% ensures that that amount of money goes back," said Mr.
Peil.
While Grovetown residents may be getting back different amounts,
people we spoke with say they're just glad it's all over.
"I'm glad they got it settled. Maybe things in Grovetown will
settle back down," said Mr. Wilson.
So far, no charges have been filed against Ms. Capetillo who's
accused of illegally raising water rates and stealing money from
the city of Grovetown.
A federal investigation is currently underway regarding those
claims.
HAPPY CAB: "Knox" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Due, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Glenda Knox, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff(s), v. Happy Cab, LLC, and Stacey R. Dixon,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00029, (S.D. Ga., March
6, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Happy Cab is a taxi company based in Camden County owned by Dixon
where Knox worked as a dispatcher.
Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
Email:RMorgan@forthepeople.com
HERMES LANDSCAPING: Faces "Rodiguez" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Chavez Rodiguez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Hermes Landscaping, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-10705, (E.D. Mich., March 6, 2017),
seeks unpaid regular and overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Hermes Landscaping, Inc. is a Kansas company with its
administrative office located at 13030 W. 87th Street Parkway,
Lenexa, Kansas. It is a full-service landscaping and irrigation
provider which serves the greater Kansas City area. It does both
commercial and residential landscape contracting work in Kansas
and Missouri where Plaintiff, a Mexican with a H-2B work permit,
worked as a groundskeeper and landscaper.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Patricia C. Kakalec, Esq.
KAKALEC & SCHLANGER, LLP
85 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 500-6114
Fax: (212) 612-7996
Email: pkakalec@kakalec-schlanger.com
- and -
Heather Schlozman, Esq.
Mark Dugan, Esq.
DUGAN SCHLOZMAN LLC
8826 Santa Fe Drive, Suite 307
Overland Park, Kansas 66212
Tel: (913) 322-3528
Fax: 913-904-0213
Email: heather@duganschlozman.com
HMS HOLDINGS: Danahar Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
Mary Danahar, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HMS Holdings Corp., William C. Lucia and
Jeffrey S. Sherman, Defendants, Case 3:17-cv-01494 (D.N.J., March
3, 2017) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of federal securities laws.
Defendants failed to disclose that the Company lacked effective
internal control over financial reporting and that the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. On this news, the Company's shares fell $0.47 per
share or over 2.47% to close at $18.50 per share on March 3, 2017,
damaging investors, including the Plaintiff.
HMS operates in the healthcare insurance benefit cost containment
market in the United States. The Company offers technology, data
services and analytics to cover the payment continuum including
eligibility verification, payment accuracy, fraud identification
and prevention, cost savings, performance improvement, and
provider education.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
South Orange, NJ 07079
Tel: (973) 313-1887
Fax: (973) 833-0399
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
HMS HOLDINGS: May 2 Deadline for Bids to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a national securities litigation firm, on
March 5 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against HMS Holdings Corp. ("HMS or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HMSY)
and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the
federal securities laws. The deadline to move the court for lead
plaintiff status is May 2, 2017.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired HMS securities between
May 10, 2016 and March 2, 2017 (the "Class Period") and wish to
learn more about your options, you are encouraged to contact
attorney Bradley Vettraino at (617) 398-5600, or visit
www.blockesq.com/hms.
In November of 2016, HMS revealed that there "could be a material
negative impact on our future revenue in future periods" in
connection with disputes over the Company's Medicare Recovery
Audit Contractor, owned by HMS, and the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
On this news, HMS shares fell 21.5%, causing tens of millions in
losses to investors.
On March 2, 2017, HMS announced it would be unable to timely file
its full-year 2016 financial results, revealing that the Company
had identified a "material weakness in the Company's internal
controls over financial reporting," resulting in a stock drop of
another 2.5%.
The case, brought on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise HMS securities during the Class Period, alleges that the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) HMS lacked effective internal control over
financial reporting; and (2) as a result, HMS's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times, and that when the truth was revealed, investors suffered
damages.
Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with relevant
information is assured.
Block & Leviton LLP -- http://www.blockesq.com-- is a Boston-
based law firm representing investors nationwide. The firm's
lawyers have collectively been prosecuting securities cases on
behalf of individual and institutional investors for over 50
years, and have recovered billions of dollars on their behalf.
Block & Leviton's investigations into corporate wrongdoing were
recently covered by the New York Times.
The case, filed March 3, 2017, is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, and is captioned
Danahar v. HMS Holdings Corp., et al., Ca No. 3:17-cv-01494
(D.N.J.). The court is located at 4th & Cooper Streets, Camden,
New Jersey 08101.
CONTACT:
Block & Leviton LLP
Bradley J. Vettraino
155 Federal Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 398-5600
HOME DEPOT: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action in Chicago
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that an
Illinois man has sought to nail one of the largest home
improvement retailers in the country with a class action lawsuit,
asserting they should be made to pay for selling two-by-fours and
other pieces of lumber that don't measure up to their listed
dimensions.
On March 8, plaintiff Mikhail Abramov filed his complaint in
Chicago federal court against The Home Depot, asserting the way
the Atlanta, Ga.-based retailer sells lumber is not just an open
secret in the construction trades, but a violation of consumer
fraud laws.
Mr. Abramov is represented in the lawsuit by attorneys with the
McGuire Law P.C. firm, of Chicago.
In the lawsuit, Mr. Abramov asserts he purchased a piece of
"dimensional lumber" sold at Home Depot's store in Palatine store
in December 2016. While the label had asserted the lumber measured
four inches wide by four inches high and six feet long (4X4x6),
Mr. Abramov said when he measured the lumber piece at home, its
actual dimensions were 3.5x3.5x6, "which was 12.5 percent shorter
in height and width, and approximately 23 percent less overall
material than advertised and represented by (Home Depot)."
Mr. Abramov alleged the practice of shorting customers of the
dimensional lumber pieces they purchase is common at Home Depot.
The complaint noted, for instance, "the most commonly used 2" x 4"
- 8' framing lumber actually measures 1.5" x 3.5" - 8'."
"Nowhere does Defendant state that the advertised dimensions are
not the actual dimensions of the products, that the advertised
dimensions were 'nominal' dimensions, or anything else to indicate
that the products' actual dimensions differ from those explicitly
stated on the advertising and product labeling,"
Mr. Abramov's complaint said.
The complaint asserts Mr. Abramov and other potential plaintiffs
"would not have purchased the dimensional lumber products . . . or
would have paid materially less for them, had they known that
Defendant's representations as to the dimensions of these products
were false and misleading."
The complaint asserts Home Depot has profited from its "false
marketing and sale" of the lumber, but does not specify how.
Mr. Abramov's complaint asks the court to allow him to expand the
lawsuit to include everyone in the U.S. who purchased lumber from
Home Depot, as well as to create a special subclass of Illinois
plaintiffs who purchased lumber at Home Depot in the past three
years.
The lawsuit asks the court to award unspecified actual and
compensatory damages, or to order Home Depot to disgorge "all
funds unjustly retained . . . as a result of its unfair and
deceptive practices." The complaint also requests attorney fees,
and jury trial.
ICON SOUTH: Renter Files Class Action Over Application Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Alvarado, writing for The Real Deal, reports that a
recently filed lawsuit alleges the Icon South Beach's condominium
association charges non-refundable application fees in excess of
what is allowed by Florida law.
The suit, which seeks class action status, was filed in Miami-Dade
Circuit Court by Icon South Beach renter Derek Schwartz, but could
end up involving more than 100 plaintiffs, according to the
complaint.
Attorneys representing Schwartz and Icon Condominium Association
did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.
In order to rent or purchase one of the 290 units at Icon South
Beach, a 42-story luxury tower at 450 Alton Road, a potential
buyer or tenant must fill out an application and seek approval
from the condo association, the lawsuit states. However, the Icon
board charges applicants a $250 processing fee that is $150 more
than the Florida Condominium Act allows, the lawsuit says.
"This deceptive and unfair scheme was used by Icon to line its
pockets at the expense of Florida consumers," the lawsuit says.
"The Florida Condominium Act prohibits condominium associations
from charging transfer fees of more than $100 per applicant."
Schwartz is seeking unspecified damages for himself and anyone who
qualifies for the class action, as well as an injunction from the
court to stop Icon Condominium Association "from charging such
illegal transfer fees in the future."
The lawsuit also accuses the condo association of violating the
state's law against deceptive and unfair trade practices. If the
court authorizes the class action status, anyone who paid the $250
application fee would be able to join the lawsuit.
Icon South Beach was completed in 2004 by the Related Group.
According to Zillow, 16 units are currently on the market, asking
between $678,000 and $4.5 million. Monthly rents average between
$3,400 to $4,300 for a one-bedroom condo and between $5,800 to
$8,900 for a two-bedroom unit.
INLAND BANCORP: Court Denies iMove Chicago's Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on February 21, 2017, in the case
titled iMove Chicago, Inc. v. Inland Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-10106 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Andrea R. Wood.
The minute entry states that:
-- in light of the parties' stipulation, Plaintiff's motion
for class certification is denied without prejudice;
-- Defendants will not make any Rule 68 offer of judgment, or
otherwise tender purportedly full relief in an attempt to
moot Plaintiff's ability to seek individual relief or class
certification, until after the Court has ruled on the issue
of class certification at a later date;
-- Defendants are not prohibited from challenging class
certification on any grounds, and no party shall be deemed
to have waived any claims or defenses otherwise available
to it; and
-- the motion presentment date of February 22, 2017, is
stricken.
A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mOdPNE4t
KANSAS, USA: Thayer Moves to Certify Classes of Sexual Predators
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Thayer asks the Court to certify the action styled David
Thayer, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. TIM KECK, Interim Secretary of Kansas Department for
Aging and Disability Services, and MIKE DIXON, Clinical Program
Director of the Kansas Sexual Predator Treatment Program, Case No.
6:14-cv-01356-JTM-KGG (D. Kan.), as a class action.
Mr. Thayer brought the lawsuit on behalf of individuals civilly
committed to the Kansas Sexual Predator Treatment Program against
the Defendants for violations of their constitutional, statutory
and common law rights. He seeks equitable and injunctive relief,
and actual or nominal damages for the constitutional, statutory,
and common law claims, on behalf of these classes:
-- Injunctive Class: All residents who are civilly committed
or confined pending commitment to the SPTP pursuant to the
Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (KSVPA); and
-- Damages Class: Plaintiff and Class members who are civilly
committed to the SPTP pursuant to the KSVPA who have
sustained actual or nominal damages through the actions and
omissions of Defendants.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N81ZYWos
LENDING CLUB: Judge Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------
Allyson B. Baker, Esq. -- abaker@Venable.com -- of Venable LLP, in
an article for insideARM, reports that in a putative nationwide
consumer class action against an online marketplace lender and its
bank partner, Bethune v. LendingClub Corp., et al., a federal
judge in the Southern District of New York recently granted
defendants' motion to compel arbitration and bar class action
litigation.
Plaintiff, a New York resident, alleged that he received a private
consumer loan from LendingClub Corporation (LendingClub) in June
2015 at 29.97% interest, in excess of New York's 16% usury limit.
He filed his class action lawsuit on behalf of similarly situated
New Yorkers, as well as all U.S. persons or entities who received
loans from defendants at interest rates in excess of their state's
usury limit.
The Complaint alleged that LendingClub used a "sham" bank
partnership with WebBank -- which is chartered in Utah where there
is no usury law -- to evade the usury limits of borrowers' home
states. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that LendingClub
performed traditional lending functions, including solicitation
and loan underwriting, but then caused WebBank to fund the loans,
only to transfer them to LendingClub two days later.
The Complaint also demanded a jury trial. Defendants, however,
moved to compel arbitration and bar the class claims based on an
arbitration provision and class action waiver in plaintiff's loan
contracts with LendingClub and WebBank. Plaintiff could have
opted out of the arbitration provision within 30 days after
accepting the agreement, but he did not exercise that right.
Rather, in court he argued that the arbitration provision was
"unconscionable" because it sought to enforce the laws of Utah
(not New York, plaintiff's state of residence), and to evade the
usury protections available under New York law. Ultimately, Judge
Naomi Reice Buchwald concluded that because plaintiff was really
challenging the choice-of-law provision for the entire contract
(rather than the arbitration provision in particular), an
arbitrator (not the Court) must determine the validity of the
contract and arbitrability of the dispute. The Court further
enforced the contract's class action waiver providing that "no
arbitration shall proceed on a class, representative, or
collective basis."
Bethune is important for two main reasons. First, it demonstrates
that arbitration clauses remain a powerful tool to avoid public
litigation and potentially reduce litigation costs. Second, it
illustrates the impact that the CFPB's proposed arbitration rule
will have if finalized and if it withstands legal and legislative
challenges.
Under the proposed rule, lenders will not be able to rely on
borrowers' failure to exercise an arbitration opt-out provision,
as defendants did in Bethune. That is because the proposed rule
prohibits lenders from using arbitration clauses to bar consumers
from filing or participating in class actions.
The comment period on the proposed arbitration rule closed on
August 22, 2016. If the rule is finalized, compliance will be
required within 211 days of final publication. However, it is
unclear when, or even if, the CFPB will finalize the rule for
various reasons, including resolution of CFPB v. PHH Corp. which
is pending en banc review before the D.C. Circuit. In addition,
the Congressional Review Act may allow Congressional Republicans
to nullify a final arbitration rule, and prevent reissuance unless
authorized by a newly enacted law.
Regardless of whether the CFPB's proposed arbitration rule is
ultimately finalized, lenders must remain mindful of what consumer
arbitration clauses cannot do: protect against government
enforcement actions. Two recent matters involving "true lender"
allegations like Bethune are illustrative.
The Georgia Attorney General announced this month a $40 million
settlement with online payday lender CashCall, Inc. and affiliated
parties. The Attorney General had alleged that defendants charged
Georgians unlawfully high interest rates, and that the true lender
was not entitled to tribal immunity from state law prohibitions on
usurious lending. In another matter, the Pennsylvania Attorney
General recently defeated the motion to dismiss and bank
preemption defense of online payday lender Think Finance, Inc. See
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Think Finance, Inc. (E.D.Pa.).
The court held that the Attorney General sufficiently alleged that
Think Finance, Inc., and not its bank partner, was the "true
lender."
Online lenders and bank partners must take care to structure their
relationships with regard for "true lender" enforcement risk.
LIONS GATE: Remaining Defendants Answer Starz Merger Suit in Del.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that the
remaining defendants have filed answers to the verified
consolidated class action complaint by purported Starz
stockholders.
Between July 19, 2016 and August 30, 2016, seven putative class
action complaints were filed by purported Starz stockholders in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These actions have
been consolidated into In re Starz Stockholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 12584-VCG, and the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a verified consolidated class action
complaint on August 16, 2016. The complaint names as defendants
the members of the board of directors of Starz; Dr. Malone and
Leslie Malone; Robert Bennett and Deborah J. Bennett; The Tracey
L. Neal Trust A; The Evan D. Malone Trust A; Hilltop Investments,
LLC ("Hilltop"); Dr. Rachesky; Lions Gate; and Merger Sub. It
alleges, among other things, that the members of the Starz board
of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the
holders of Starz Series A common stock in connection with the
merger and related transactions; that Dr. Malone is a controlling
stockholder of Starz who breached fiduciary duties owed to other
Starz stockholders in connection with the merger and related
transactions; and that the other defendants aided and abetted such
breaches of fiduciary duty.
On August 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings. On September 22, 2016, the court denied the motion.
On December 8, 2016, upon shareholder approval, pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 30, 2016, Lionsgate and
Starz consummated the merger, under which Lionsgate acquired Starz
for a combination of cash and common stock.
On January 17, 2017, the court granted a stipulation dismissing
without prejudice the claims against former Starz directors Irving
Azoff, Susan Lyne, Robert Wiesenthal, Andrew Heller, and Jeffrey
Sagansky, as well as Mr. Bennett, Deborah Bennett, Leslie Malone,
Hilltop, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, and The Evan D. Malone Trust
A.
On January 26, 2017, the court granted a stipulation dismissing
without prejudice the claims against Dr. Rachesky.
The remaining defendants filed answers to the verified
consolidated class action complaint on January 24, 2017.
Defendants intend to defend the action vigorously.
On December 8, 2016, upon shareholder approval, pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 30, 2016 ("Merger
Agreement"), Lionsgate and Starz consummated the merger, under
which Lionsgate acquired Starz for a combination of cash and
common stock (the "Starz Merger"). Immediately prior to the
consummation of the Starz Merger, Lionsgate effected the
reclassification of its capital stock, pursuant to which each
existing Lionsgate common share was converted into 0.5 shares of a
newly issued class of Lionsgate Class A voting shares and 0.5
shares of a newly issued class of Lionsgate Class B non-voting
shares, subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger
Agreement. Following the reclassification (a) each share of Starz
Series A common stock was converted into the right to receive
$18.00 in cash and 0.6784 of a share of Lionsgate Class B non-
voting shares, and (b) each share of Starz Series B common stock
was converted into the right to receive $7.26 in cash, 0.6321 of a
share of Lionsgate Class B non-voting shares and 0.6321 of a share
of Lionsgate Class A voting shares, in each case, subject to the
terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement.
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is a vertically integrated next
generation global content leader with a diversified presence in
motion picture production and distribution, television programming
and syndication, premium pay television networks, home
entertainment, global distribution and sales, interactive ventures
and games and location-based entertainment.
LIONS GATE: Colorado Class Suit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that a court has
granted the defendants' unopposed motion to stay a Colorado calss
action complaint action pending final resolution of the
consolidated Delaware action.
On August 9, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed by
a purported Starz stockholder in the District Court for the City
and County of Denver, Colorado: Gross v. John C. Malone, et al.,
2016-CV-32873. The complaint names as defendants the members of
the board of directors of Starz, Dr. Malone and Robert Bennett, as
well as Lions Gate and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the members of the Starz board of directors
breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the holders of Starz
Series A common stock in connection with the merger and the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, and that Dr.
Malone, Mr. Bennett, Lions Gate, and Merger Sub aided and abetted
such breaches of fiduciary duty.
On December 10, 2016, the court granted the defendants' unopposed
motion to stay the action pending final resolution of the
consolidated Delaware action.
On December 8, 2016, upon shareholder approval, pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 30, 2016 ("Merger
Agreement"), Lionsgate and Starz consummated the merger, under
which Lionsgate acquired Starz for a combination of cash and
common stock (the "Starz Merger"). Immediately prior to the
consummation of the Starz Merger, Lionsgate effected the
reclassification of its capital stock, pursuant to which each
existing Lionsgate common share was converted into 0.5 shares of a
newly issued class of Lionsgate Class A voting shares and 0.5
shares of a newly issued class of Lionsgate Class B non-voting
shares, subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger
Agreement. Following the reclassification (a) each share of Starz
Series A common stock was converted into the right to receive
$18.00 in cash and 0.6784 of a share of Lionsgate Class B non-
voting shares, and (b) each share of Starz Series B common stock
was converted into the right to receive $7.26 in cash, 0.6321 of a
share of Lionsgate Class B non-voting shares and 0.6321 of a share
of Lionsgate Class A voting shares, in each case, subject to the
terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement.
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is a vertically integrated next
generation global content leader with a diversified presence in
motion picture production and distribution, television programming
and syndication, premium pay television networks, home
entertainment, global distribution and sales, interactive ventures
and games and location-based entertainment.
LIONS GATE: Settlement of N.Y. Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that the
settlement of a stockholder class action in New York remains
subject to approval by the court.
On October 7, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed by
a purported Lions Gate stockholder in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for the County of Nassau: Levy v. Malone, et
al., Index No. 607759/2016. The complaint names as defendants
Lions Gate and the members of its board of directors. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the
Lions Gate board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to
Lions Gate stockholders and/or aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties by others in connection with the proposed merger,
and that Lions Gate and the members of its board of directors
failed to disclose material information in the amended joint proxy
statement/ prospectus on Form S-4/A filed on September 7, 2016 in
connection with the proposed merger.
On November 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to preliminarily
enjoin the proposed merger and for expedited discovery. On
November 23, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement resolving the action, and on November 25, 2016, filed a
stipulation withdrawing plaintiff's motion. The settlement remains
subject to approval by the court.
On December 8, 2016, upon shareholder approval, pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 30, 2016 ("Merger
Agreement"), Lionsgate and Starz consummated the merger, under
which Lionsgate acquired Starz for a combination of cash and
common stock (the "Starz Merger"). Immediately prior to the
consummation of the Starz Merger, Lionsgate effected the
reclassification of its capital stock, pursuant to which each
existing Lionsgate common share was converted into 0.5 shares of a
newly issued class of Lionsgate Class A voting shares and 0.5
shares of a newly issued class of Lionsgate Class B non-voting
shares, subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger
Agreement. Following the reclassification (a) each share of Starz
Series A common stock was converted into the right to receive
$18.00 in cash and 0.6784 of a share of Lionsgate Class B non-
voting shares, and (b) each share of Starz Series B common stock
was converted into the right to receive $7.26 in cash, 0.6321 of a
share of Lionsgate Class B non-voting shares and 0.6321 of a share
of Lionsgate Class A voting shares, in each case, subject to the
terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement.
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is a vertically integrated next
generation global content leader with a diversified presence in
motion picture production and distribution, television programming
and syndication, premium pay television networks, home
entertainment, global distribution and sales, interactive ventures
and games and location-based entertainment.
LJ ROSS: Certification of Two Classes Sought in "White" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled HEATHER L. WHITE, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. LJ ROSS ASSOCIATES,
INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-10595-LVP-RSW (E.D. Mich.), submits her
motion for class certification contemporaneously with the filing
of her complaint in an effort to protect the matter continuing as
a class action as defendants will frequently either make a Rule 68
Offer of Judgment for more than the maximum of what a plaintiff
could obtain at trial.
Ms. White says she is, however, willing to stipulate to
withdrawing without prejudice her motion for class certification
so long as the Defendant stipulates to not making any offer to
her.
If such a stipulation cannot be reached with the Defendant, Ms.
White asks the Court to certify two classes:
1. FDCPA Class: All persons who received a collection letter
from LJ Ross Associates Inc., that was sent from
February 23, 2016, to February 23, 2017, where the debt
sought to be collected was discharged in bankruptcy; and
2. MOC Class: All persons who received a collection letter
from LJ Ross Associates Inc., that was sent from
February 23, 2011, to February 23, 2017, where the debt
sought to be collected was discharged in bankruptcy.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8G7JZgq7
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
350 S. Northwest HWY., Suite 300
Park Ridge, IL 60068
Telephone: (847) 701-5290
E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal
- and -
John A. Evanchek, Esq.
KELLEY & EVANCHEK PC
43695 Michigan Ave.
Canton, MI 48188
Telephone: (734) 397-4540
E-mail: john@kelawpc.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Garcia Moves to Certify Class of DSO, SDSO & GSN
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled EDGAR GARCIA, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-
cv-03549-FMO-VBK (C.D. Cal.), moves for preliminary approval of a
class-wide settlement reached with the Defendant.
The County of Los Angeles does not oppose the Motion.
Edgar Garcia seeks preliminary approval of the Joint Stipulation
of Class Action Settlement and Release Between Plaintiff, on
Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated, and the
Defendant that, if granted, would provide significant monetary
relief for approximately 570 current and former employees of the
Defendant County, according to the Motion. The Plaintiff filed
the putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of wage and
hour law.
The Settlement Class defined as:
All persons employed by Defendant as a Detention Service
Officer ("DSO"), Senior DSO ("SDSO") and Group Supervisor
Nights ("GSN") from March 30, 2013, through the Date of
Preliminary Approval ("Claims Period") who have timely
submitted a completed Claim and Release Form (collectively,
the "Settlement Class Members").
The Settlement provides for a maximum settlement amount of
$1,275,000 to be paid by the Defendant in full satisfaction of the
claims arising from the Action.
The Motion also seeks for the appointment of Solomon E. Gresen,
Esq., and Jack Risemberg, Esq., of RGLawyers, LLP, as Class
Counsel, the appointment of ILYM Group as Settlement
Administrator, and the approval of the proposed notice to the
settlement class and claim form.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M2L8GPks
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Solomon E. Gresen, Esq.
Jack Risemberg, Esq.
RG LAWYERS LLP
15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1610
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 815-2727
Facsimile: (818) 815-2737
E-mail: seg@rglawyers.com
jr@rglawyers.com
LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNMENT: "Mungen" Action Seeks to Recover OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Mungen, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Loyal Source Government
Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00362, (M.D. Fla.,
March 2, 2017), seeks double damages and reasonable attorney fees
from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing, interest and any
other relief.
Defendant is a staffing agency in Orange County, Florida, where
Mungen worked as a recruiter, reviewing job postings to determine
the needs of medical employers within their area, reviewing
resumes of applicants in Defendant's databases for the minimum
requirements listed on various job postings and facilitating
interviews between employers and applicants.
Plaintiff regularly worked hours in excess of forty hours in a
workweek, worked from home regularly using a company-issued laptop
and was required to stay beyond his normal schedule when the need
arose due to work flow, new contract, or other event giving rise
to the need to work increased hours.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
David V. Barszcz, Esq.
Robert N. Sutton, Esq.
LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A.
543 N. Wymore Road, Ste. 103
Maitland, FL 32751
Telephone: (407) 622-6544
Facsimile: (407) 622-6545
Email: mlflle@lblaw.attorney
dbarszcz@lblaw.attomey
rsutton@lblaw.attorney
LUNADA BAY: Beachgoers Class Not Certified in "Spencer" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable S. James Otero denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification filed in the lawsuit titled Spencer, et al. v.
Lunada Bay Boys, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-02129-SJO-RAO (C.D.
Cal.).
Riding the wave of the Point Break remake, the Plaintiffs
initiated the putative class action lawsuit on March 29, 2016,
alleging they and other would-be beach-goers have been unlawfully
excluded from parks, beaches, and ocean access in Palos Verdes
Estates. In particular, the Plaintiffs assert that Individual
Defendants' long-standing history of "localism," a "territorial
practice whereby resident surfers attempt to exclude nonresident
beachgoers and surfers through threats, intimidation, and
violence," at Palos Verdes Estates' infamous "Lunada Bay" and City
Defendants' nonchalance about such localism violate a bevy of
federal and state laws.
The Plaintiffs defines the class as:
All visiting beachgoers to Lunada Bay who do not live in
Palos Verdes Estates, as well as those who have been
deterred from visiting Lunada Bay because of the Bay Boys'
actions, the Individual Defendants' actions, the City of
PVE's actions and inaction, and Defendant Chief of Police
Kepley's action and inaction, and subsequently denied during
the Liability Period, and/or are currently being denied, on
the basis of them living outside of the City of PVE, full
and equal enjoyment of rights under the state and federal
constitution, to services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, and/or recreational opportunities at Lunada Bay.
For purposes of this class, "visiting beachgoers" includes
all persons who do not reside in the City of PVE, and who
are not members of the Bay Boys, but want lawful, safe, and
secure access to Lunada Bay to engage in recreational
activities, including, but not limited to, surfers, boaters,
sunbathers, fisherman, picnickers, kneeboarders, stand-up
paddle boarders, boogie boarders, bodysurfers, windsurfers,
kite surfers, kayakers, walkers, dog walkers, hikers,
beachcombers, photographers, and sightseers.
In the civil minutes, Judge Otero opines, among other things, that
the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that there are
significant questions of law or fact common to the entire class
and, therefore, have fallen far short of demonstrating that
significant common questions of law or fact predominate over any
other questions affecting individual members.
A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rPJoiSVG
METTRUM LTD: Faces Class Action Over Pesticide Use
--------------------------------------------------
Grant Robertson, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that two
federally regulated medical-marijuana companies caught up in a
tainted-cannabis scare are facing proposed class-action lawsuits
from patients who unknowingly ingested banned pesticides.
Mettrum Ltd. and OrganiGram Inc. were both found selling medical
marijuana that contained unauthorized chemicals, including the
controversial pesticide myclobutanil, which produces hydrogen
cyanide when combusted and can lead to serious health problems.
The suit against OrganiGram was filed in Nova Scotia Supreme Court
on March 6 by Halifax-based Wagners Law Firm, while a separate
action against Mettrum was filed in Ontario Supreme Court by the
firm Roy O'Connor LLP.
Both actions are seeking certification from the courts and are
asking that the companies be forced to refund patients' money, in
addition to paying out further damages.
The OrganiGram suit is led by Halifax patient Dawn Rae Downton,
who was not previously a marijuana user but was prescribed medical
cannabis to alleviate serious back pain, the documents allege.
After taking the product daily, "Ms. Downton began to suffer from
severe nausea and vomiting within approximately two weeks after
first consuming the Affected Product," the documents allege. "The
severity of the symptoms restricted her ability to stand, walk or
leave the house. She was confined to her home and bed for the
majority of the time. Even light household chores became
unmanageable."
The Mettrum suit is led by Erin Christiansen, a Thunder Bay woman
who unknowingly ingested tainted product purchased from the
Toronto-based company, which has since been purchased by Canopy
Growth Corp., Canada's largest medical-marijuana producer.
"I was disturbed to learn that unapproved pest-control products
were used on Mettrum's medical-marijuana plants," Ms. Christiansen
said in a statement. "If I had known there was a risk that
Mettrum's plants had been treated with an unapproved pesticide, I
would never have purchased the products."
Neither OrganiGram CEO Denis Arsenault, nor Mettrum's owner,
Canopy, were immediately available for comment on March 6. The
allegations have not been proven in court.
The tainted-cannabis problems have led to management shakeups at
both companies. OrganiGram announced a new CEO, Greg Engel, would
be taking the reins on March 13, while Mr. Arsenault is moving to
the board of directors as executive chairman. And former Mettrum
CEO Michael Haines was not retained by Canopy when it closed the
deal to purchase the company Jan. 31.
The problems emerged several months ago when Mettrum issued a
series of recalls in late 2016 due to the discovery of an
unauthorized pesticide, pyrethrin. That led to subsequent tests
that turned up banned myclobutanil.
While Mettrum informed some patients of the situation, neither the
company nor Health Canada disclosed the discovery of myclobutanil
to the broader public, including prospective patients, in their
press releases announcing the recalls.
When The Globe and Mail called Mettrum's customer help line in
December, a reporter had to specifically ask about the presence of
myclobutanil before the company offered up the information.
Soon after the Mettrum problem came to light, OrganiGram announced
its own recall due to myclobutanil, along with a second banned
pesticide, bifenazate. Alberta-based Aurora Cannabis Inc.
discovered the issue with OrganiGram's supply when it purchased a
bulk shipment from the company and had it tested for contaminants.
The discovery of banned pesticides in a regulated product sold as
medicine has called into question Health Canada's oversight of the
nascent medical-marijuana industry, particularly because the
government does not require companies to prove through regular
testing that their products are safe and free of unauthorized
pesticides such as myclobutanil, which is considered carcinogenic.
Health Canada told The Globe that it didn't require companies to
test for such chemicals because the industry knew they were banned
and therefore shouldn't be using them -- which effectively left
companies to police themselves.
Myclobutanil, a fungicidal pesticide, is used to rid crops of
mildew, and is often employed as a dangerous shortcut by
unscrupulous cannabis growers in order to save crops hit by an
outbreak. While the chemical is approved for some food crops,
such as grapes, because it can be safely broken down by the
digestive system, it is not approved for plants that are smoked.
Dow AgroSciences, which manufactures the chemical, warns against
using the product on cannabis.
A former Mettrum employee told The Globe he witnessed myclobutanil
being sprayed directly on the company's plants as far back as
2014, despite knowing it was prohibited, and provided e-mail
evidence showing that management was aware of the problem.
Mettrum's former CEO, Mr. Haines, has not responded to numerous
requests for comment by The Globe.
"Various individuals have clearly expressed their concern and
disappointment over this situation and the [Mettrum] recalls,"
David O'Connor -- dfo@royoconnor.ca -- of the firm Roy O'Connor,
said on March 6. "This proposed class-action can provide these
individuals with an efficient avenue to have their claims
addressed in court."
Meanwhile, OrganiGram said that it conducted an internal
investigation into its recall and could not determine how the
chemical got into the company's plants.
Wagners Law Firm said more than 2,000 customers are estimated to
have purchased contaminated products from OrganiGram, which is
based in Moncton, N.B.
The proposed class-action suit against OrganiGram alleges that the
company "manufactured its organic medical-cannabis product without
having in place adequate quality-control protocols."
The suit also alleges OrganiGram "took no immediate steps to
modify its manufacturing practices once it became aware of the
presence of prohibited pesticides in the Affected Product."
In particular, the suit claims customers of the company were
misled on the safety of the medicine by the company's organic
designation, which was provided by certification agency Ecocert
Canada. That designation has since been suspended.
OrganiGram has offered customers a credit for the products they
purchased. However, the suit seeks to have OrganiGram refund the
financial proceeds made from the recalled products, in addition to
other damages.
"OrganiGram has acted in such a high-handed, wanton and reckless
or deliberate manner, without due regard to public health and
safety as to warrant an award of punitive damages," the suit
alleges.
METTRUM LTD: Canopy Growth Responds to Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Details of a possible class action suit naming Mettrum Health
Corp., an entity that was fully acquired by Canopy Growth
Corporation ("Canopy Growth" or "the Company") on January 31, 2017
have been publicly reported.
In response to these reports, the Company wishes to state that it
conducted thorough due diligence during the process of acquiring
Mettrum Health Corp. and was aware of the extent and scope of the
recall Mettrum was conducting.
Canopy Growth was, and continues to be satisfied with Health
Canada's independent decision to classify the Mettrum recall as a
Type III recall, defined as "a situation in which the use of, or
exposure to, a product is not likely to cause any adverse health
consequences."
The Company will defend itself vigorously against all suits
relating to Mettrum recalls.
About Canopy Growth Corporation
Canopy Growth -- http://www.canopygrowth.com-- is a diversified
cannabis company, offering diverse brands and curated cannabis
strain varieties in dried and oil extract forms. Through its
wholly-owned subsidiaries, Canopy Growth operates numerous state-
of-the-art production facilities with over half a million square
feet of indoor and greenhouse production capacity. Canopy Growth
has established partnerships with leading sector names in Canada
and abroad.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that several consumers have filed a class-action suit
against Midland Credit Management Inc. over allegations of
harassment.
Natalie Huffman, Steve Huffman, Inna Borboa Badran, et al. filed a
complaint on Feb. 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division against Midland Credit
Management Inc. and Does 1-10 alleging that they violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they were
caused to suffer from a barraged of calls using an auto-dialer and
artificial voice from the defendant in its attempt to collect on
an alleged debt. The plaintiffs hold Midland Credit Management
Inc. and Does 1-10 responsible because the defendants allegedly
refused to honor plaintiffs' do-not-call requests, attempted to
bully plaintiffs into making immediate payment, and unlawfully
utilized an automatic dialer and automated voice.
The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendants, $500 in statutory damages per violation, treble
damages in an amount up to $1,500 per violation, and further
relief as may be just. They are represented by Tammy Hussin --
Tammy@HussinLaw.com -- of Hussin Law in Encinitas.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Southern Division Case number 2:17-cv-01534
MINOR LEAGUE: Baseball Players' Wage Class Action Recertified
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a suit by minor leaguer baseball
players alleging they are being paid less than minimum wage has
been recertified as a class action in federal court in San
Francisco.
The players sued in February, claiming most earn less than $7,500
annually in violation of several laws. Magistrate Judge Joseph C.
Spero preliminarily granted class-action status in October 2015
and withdrew the certification last July. After a motion to
reconsider, Judge Spero ordered on March 7 to certify a class that
included players who participated since Feb. 7, 2011, in the
California League, spring training, extended spring training or
instructional leagues and hadn't signed a major league contract
before then.
Judge Spero recertified the players who participated in spring
training, extended spring training and instructional leagues as a
collective under federal law and the California League players as
a class under California state law.
In a 69-page order, Judge Spero told the parties to propose a case
schedule by April 28 and set a case management conference for May
12.
Major League Baseball declined comment. Baseball Commissioner Rob
Manfred said last year "this is not a dollars-and-cents issue" but
"the irrationality of the application of traditional workplace
overtime rules to minor league baseball players."
MISONIX INC: Scalfani's Motion for Lead Plaintiff Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Misonix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that the request of Richard
Scalfani for appointment as lead plaintiff remains pending.
On September 19, 2016, Richard Scalfani, an individual shareholder
of Misonix, filed a lawsuit against the Company and its former CEO
and CFO in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The
complaint alleges that the Company's stock price was artificially
inflated between November 5, 2015 and September 14, 2016 as a
result of alleged false and misleading statements in the Company's
securities filings concerning the Company's business, operations,
and prospects and the Company's internal control over financial
reporting. Scalfani filed the action seeking to represent a
putative class of all persons (other than defendants, officers and
directors of the Company, and their affiliates) who purchased
publicly traded Misonix securities between November 5, 2015 and
September 14, 2016. Scalfani seeks an unspecified amount of
damages for himself and for the putative class under the federal
securities laws.
On November 18, 2016, Scalfani and another individual Misonix
shareholder, Tracey Angiuoli, moved the Court to be appointed lead
plaintiffs for purposes of pursuing the action on behalf of the
putative class.
The Company believes it has various legal and factual defenses to
the allegations in the complaint, and intends to vigorously defend
the action. The case is at its earliest stages; there has been no
discovery and there is no trial date.
Misonix, Inc. is a New York corporation which, through its
predecessors, was first organized in 1959. It designs,
manufactures, develops and markets minimally invasive therapeutic
ultrasonic medical devices.
MULTI PACKAGING: Monteverde Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner at Monteverde &
Associates PC, a boutique securities firm headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, on March 5 disclosed that
it is investigating Multi Packaging Solutions International
Limited ("Multi Packaging" or "the Company") (NYSE: MPSX) and its
Board of Directors for potential securities laws violations and/or
breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of the
Company to WestRock Company ("WestRock"). Under the terms of the
agreement, Multi Packaging shareholders will be entitled to
receive $18.00 for each share of Multi Packaging common stock they
own.
The investigation focuses on whether Multi Packaging and its Board
of Directors violated securities laws and/or breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by 1) failing to
conduct a fair process 2) whether and by how much this proposed
transaction undervalues the Company by and 3) failing to disclose
all material financial information in connection with the upcoming
shareholder meeting on April 5, 2017.
Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of
dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers
from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates PC lawyers
have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
If you own common stock in Multi Packaging and wish to obtain
additional information and protect your investments free of
charge, please visit us at
http://www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/or contact Juan
E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
MMW CAFE: "Munna" Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Spread of Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
MD Saber Ahmed Munna, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MMW Cafe LLC, John Mahon and Eugin Wilson,
jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01668, (S.D.
N.Y., March 6, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, unpaid "spread of hours" premium in excess
of ten hours and civil penalties pursuant to New York Labor Laws,
New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act and the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Defendants operate as Bloom's Tavern, an Irish restaurant and bar
located at 208 East 58th Street, New York, NY 10022 where Mahon
and Wilson as a busboy and bar-back, cleaning the bathrooms and
floors, taking out the trash, picking up deliveries and stocking
supplies. Defendants allegedly did not provide wage notices and
wage statements, thus failing to account Plaintiff's actual work
hours.
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ariadne Anna Panagopoulou Alexandrou, Esq.
PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
3510 Broadway, Suite 204
Astoria, NY 11106
Tel: 1(718) 777-0400
Email: ari@pnlawyers.com
NANTHEALTH INC: Faces Class Action, May 8 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on March 8 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against NantHealth, Inc. ("NantHealth" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:NH) in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of a class consisting
of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired NantHealth
securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to NantHealth's false
and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus, issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about
June 2, 2016 (the "IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the open
market between June 2, 2016 and March 3, 2017, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendant Soon-
Shiong funneled business to NantHealth through his donation to the
University of Utah, pursuant to the contractual terms of which the
university was effectively required to spend $10 million on
genetics analysis performed by the Company; (ii) consequently, the
number of test orders that NantHealth reported to investors was
artificially inflated; (iii) the contracts governing Soon-Shiong's
donation to the university violated federal tax law; and (iv) as a
result, NantHealth's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On March 6, 2017, STAT, a news organization focused on medical
industry reporting, published an article alleging that pursuant to
the terms of Soon-Shiong's donation to the University of Utah, the
university was effectively required to spend $10 million on
genetics analysis performed by NantHealth, an arrangement which
enabled NantHealth to inflate by more than 50 percent the number
of test orders it reported to investors in 2016. In addition, the
article quoted two tax experts stating that the deal "appeared to
violate federal tax rules governing certain charitable donations"
and "amount[ed] to indirect self-dealing by Soon-Shiong and his
foundations." On this news, NantHealth's share price fell $1.67,
or 23.29%, to close at $5.50 on March 6, 2017.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 8, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm.
Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on March 8 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class
(the "Class") consisting of persons and entities that acquired
NantHealth, Inc. ("NantHealth" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NH)
securities either: (1) pursuant or traceable to the Company's
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's IPO which occurred on or about June 1, 2016; or (2)
between June 1, 2016, and March 6, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from March 8, 2017, to serve as lead
plaintiff. Please contact Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-9224 or 310-
201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.
On March 6, 2017, STAT, a news organization focused on medical
industry reporting, published an article alleging that NantHealth
founder, Patrick Soon-Shiong ("Soon-Shiong"), had donated $12
million to the University of Utah from three different tax-exempt
entities controlled by him under a contract that required the
University to funnel much of that money into NantHealth. STAT
alleged that the scheme allowed the Company to inflate the number
of test orders it reported to investors. On this news, the
Company's stock price fell 23.2%, thereby injuring investors.
The filed complaint alleges claims under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. According to the
complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that
Soon-Shiong had donated funds through nonprofit organizations to
the University of Utah for the purpose of funneling those funds
back into NantHealth; (2) that, as such, the Company and Soon-
Shiong participated in the violation of federal tax laws --
exposing the Company to possible civil and criminal liability; (3)
that the Company improperly recorded orders received from the
University of Utah as GPS Cancer test orders; (4) that, as a
result, the Company reported false and inflated GPS Cancer order
figures for the third quarter of 2016; and (5) that, as a result
of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements and
Defendants' statements about NantHealth's business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading.
If you purchased shares of NantHealth in connection with the
Company's IPO, or during Class Period, you may move the Court no
later than 60 days from March 8, 2017, to ask the Court to appoint
you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by
e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.
NASON HOMES: Caldwell Claims Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Caldwell, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Nason Homes LLC, Stuart Beattie and Jessica
Beattie, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00401 (M.D. Tenn., March 1,
2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
as well as damages resulting from illegal termination pursuant to
the Federal Consumer Protection Act of 1968.
Defendant builds and sells residential homes in Clarksville,
Columbia and Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Caldwell worked for the
Defendants as a bookkeeper. She claims to be misclassified as an
independent contractor, thus denied the usual benefits of being
employed.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jimmy Bewley, Esq.
Jenni Bryant, Esq.
JAMES BEWLEY LAW PLLC
300 10th Ave., South
Nashville TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 988-9411
E-mail: jbewley@JBLfirm.com
jbryant@JBLfirm.com
- and -
Peter F. Klett, Esq.
Joshua Burgener, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
Fifth Third Center
424 Church St., Suite 1401
Nashville TN 37219-2392
Tel: (615) 244-6538
NEINSTEIN FIRM: Hodge's Case Personal Injury Not Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michele HenryStaff and Kenyon Wallace, writing for Toronto Star,
report that the accident victim at the centre of a case into
alleged "double-dipping" by a prominent Toronto law firm is in a
class by herself -- and what happened in her case didn't happen to
any other former clients, an appeal court has been told.
Cassie Hodge, 45, who is alleged to have ended up with a fraction
of her insurance settlement after hiring personal injury lawyer
Gary Neinstein and his firm, was the only former client of the
firm to have more fees taken from her than Ontario law allows,
lawyers for the Neinstein firm argued on March 8 before a panel of
the Ontario Court of Appeal.
The three judges have been asked to determine whether the case
should be certified as a class-action lawsuit, which would
potentially involve up to 6,000 former clients of the Neinstein
firm.
Neinstein lawyer Chris Paliare told an Osgoode Hall courtroom that
Hodge, a mother of two from Brooklin, Ont., is "the only person
identified" among former clients of Neinstein "who appears to have
paid a slightly greater portion of 'costs' and that her case is
"arguably the exception."
In simple terms, lawyers working on contingency -- "you don't pay
unless we win" -- cannot take a sum of money called "costs" in
addition to a percentage of the settlement, according to the
Solicitor's Act, legislation governing how lawyers behave.
An ongoing Star investigation found personal injury lawyers in
Ontario routinely take this second payment, which critics call
"double-dipping."
Originally, a Superior Court judge refused to certify the
Neinstein case as a class action. Then a Divisional Court
reversed that decision. Class counsel Peter Waldmann was set to
argue on March 9 in favour of keeping the class certification.
If the court of appeal panel decides to keep the class
certification, it will proceed to trial or a settlement, barring
any further appeal. The case could have wide-ranging
ramifications for other personal injury cases in Ontario.
Meanwhile, at Queen's Park, Liberal MPP Mike Colle (Eglinton-
Lawrence), inspired in part by the Star's investigation, tabled a
private member's bill calling for all contingency fees to be
capped at 15 per cent of the settlements awarded to accident
victims.
Titled the Personal Injury and Accident Victims Protection Act,
the bill requires contingency fee agreements to state clearly how
lawyers will get paid, calls for a ban on lawyer referral fees,
and makes all advertising by personal injury lawyers subject to
pre-approval by the Law Society of Upper Canada. In addition,
clients who have signed up with a personal injury lawyer would be
granted a 10-day cooling-off period in which to cancel their
agreement. The Law Society of Upper Canada recently made a series
of recommendations regarding the same subject.
Private member's bills rarely become law but Mr. Colle said the
idea is to raise awareness of issues he is hearing about from
accident victims and "put heat on the government to do something
in this area."
"For these accident victims who have been essentially hit twice,
I'm trying to protect them," Mr. Colle said.
On March 8, Ms. Hodge sat motionless, listening calmly while
lawyers for the Neinstein firm made their arguments.
Mr. Paliare told the court that Hodge, who still suffers from
chronic pain after her 2002 accident, is in a "class of one" and
that the cost-taking in her case was because of issues with the
case including the length of litigation that spanned eight years.
There was no court approval for the cost-taking, the court heard.
Mr. Paliare and lawyer Odette Soriano argued that Ms. Hodge's case
should not be a class action for a variety of reasons, including a
lack of common issues among the potential class members. The
Neinstein firm has a variety of retainers and not all clients used
the same one, Mr. Paliare said. As well, he said, "the actual
dollar amount charged at the end of the case is typically less
than the percentage fee of the agreement without any costs."
For those reasons and others the cases are "highly
individualized," Ms. Soriano said and should each be evaluated on
their own.
NETFLIX INC: Faces Class Action, May 1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on March 7 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Northern
District of California on behalf of investors who purchased
Netflix, Inc. ("Netflix") (NFLX) securities between July 22, 2014
and October 15, 2014.
Click here to learn about the case:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra/netflix-inc.There is no cost or
obligation to you.
The complaint alleges that Company insiders knew from prior
experience and analyses that price increases could have a
substantial negative impact on subscriber growth; yet on July 21,
2014, CEO Reed Hastings and CFO David Wells told the market that
the impact of the price increase had been "minimal" and "nominal."
The complaint alleges, however, that just three months later, on
October 15, 2014, Defendants revealed that subscriber growth
numbers were so low that the Company was forced to slash its
projected earnings by nearly half, suggesting that "[as] best we
can tell, the primary cause is the slightly higher price we now
have compared to a year ago."
If you suffered a loss in Netflix you have until May 1, 2017 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra/netflix-
inc.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.
NOVARTIS PHARMA: Judge Strikes Down Class Action Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner used few words when
striking down certification of a class action brought by Public
Justice. But he did it with his usual flair: By comparing eye
drops to . . . cats?
The case involved consumers who alleged that 33 varieties of
prescription eye drops used for the treatment of glaucoma were too
large for their eyes. The plaintiffs claimed they overpaid for
unnecessarily large drops that would have been just as effective
if sold in a smaller size.
"Suppose the class members all happened to own pedigreed cats,"
wrote Posner, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, in a ruling issued on March 6, "and the breeders who had
sold the cats to the class members had told them that as
responsible cat owners they would have to feed the cats kibbles
during the day and Fancy Feast at night and buy a fountain for
each cat because cats prefer to drink out of a fountain (where
gravity works for them) rather than out of a bowl (where gravity
works against them) and they don't like to share a fountain with
another cat."
Then suppose the cat food got expensive, and the fountains didn't
work, wrote Judge Posner, who is a cat owner.
The cat owners became dissatisfied. "Yet would anyone think they
could successfully sue the breeders? For what? The breeders had
made no misrepresentations," he wrote. The cat owners might be
disappointed, but they have no case. "It's the same here," he
said.
The bottom line, Judge Posner said, is that even if a smaller eye
drop would be cheaper and equally effective, consumers had still
received what they paid for. Notably, he wrote, there was no
allegation of collusion or misrepresentation, nor any suggestion
that the eye drops are unsafe.
"The fact that a seller does not sell the product that you want,
or at the price you'd like to pay, is not an actionable injury; it
is just a regret or disappointment," Posner wrote.
In so ruling, Judge Posner reversed a 2016 class certification
decision and ordered U.S. District Judge Staci Yandle of the
Southern District of Illinois to dismiss the case with prejudice
on remand.
The case, which drew amicus briefs from the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and the American Tort Reform Association, touches on two
hot topics in the class action defense bar: Appeals of class
certification orders and cases brought over injuries that
defendants consider to be immaterial. The stricken certification
order had involved eight classes of Illinois and Missouri
consumers, and the Seventh Circuit decision concluded that the
plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to assert how they
had been harmed.
"One cannot bring a suit in federal court without pleading that
one has been injured in some way (physically, financially --
whatever) by the defendant," Judge Posner wrote. "That's what's
required for standing."
Leah Nicholls, a lawyer at Public Justice in Washington who argued
for the plaintiffs, declined to comment. In a letter filed on
March 7 in a similar case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, Ms. Nicholls noted that the five-page opinion
contained only one paragraph addressing the standing issue and was
"at odds with the law" in finding that the plaintiffs didn't have
injuries. "Because the decision fails to meaningfully grapple
with the plaintiffs' standing allegations, this court should give
it no weight," she wrote.
Gregory Ostfeld -- ostfeldg@gtlaw.com -- co-chairman of the
Chicago litigation practice at Greenberg Traurig, argued on behalf
of the defendants. He did not respond to a request for comment.
Tatiana Yastremski, a spokeswoman for Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Corp., which owns Alcon Laboratories Inc., Mr. Ostfeld's client,
wrote in an email: "Novartis is very pleased with the decision of
the Seventh Circuit and to finally bring conclusion to this
matter. The court's decision validates our original position that
the case was without merit."
The other defendants in the case were Pfizer Inc., Allergan Inc.
and Merck & Co. Inc.
OMEGA PROTEIN: Faces "Malone" Suit Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Malone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Omega Protein Corporation, Bret D.
Scholtes and Andrew C. Johannesen, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01596, (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2017), seeks compensatory damages,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including
counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Omega is a nutritional products company that purportedly develops,
produces, and delivers products to improve the nutritional
integrity of foods, dietary supplements and animal feeds.
On March 1, 2017, the Company disclosed that it received a
subpoena from the SEC requesting information in connection with an
investigation relating to a Company subsidiary's compliance with
its probation terms and the Company's protection of whistle-blower
employees. The Company also disclosed that the investigation could
result in a material adverse effect on its business, reputation,
results of operation, and financial condition. On this news, the
price of Omega common stock fell $6.25 per share, or 23.8%, to
close at $20.00 per share on March 2, 2017, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Malone owns Omega common stock and has lost substantially.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
New York, New York 10168
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com
- and -
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
ONONDAGA, NY: Juvenile Solitary Confinement Case Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Syracuse's Editorial Board reports that thanks to a federal judge,
16- and 17-year-old youths being held at the Onondaga County
Justice Center jail no longer can be put into solitary
confinement. Judge David Hurd's order is temporary while a class-
action lawsuit over the practice proceeds, but the jail ought to
take the court's not-so-subtle hint and end this barbaric
punishment permanently.
The descriptions of conditions in "the box" were hair-raising
enough, but photos published by Syracuse.com drove home the point.
Youths were being confined to a 7-foot-by-9-foot cell for 23 hours
a day; allowed one hour of "recreation" in a barren cage; forced
to endure taunts and harassment from adult inmates; deprived of
reading materials and schooling; and isolated from meaningful
human interaction with their jailers or peers held in solitary.
Holding 16- and 17-year-olds in such harsh conditions can do
lasting psychological harm to them while doing little to moderate
their bad behavior, say experts for the plaintiffs. In the
corrections community, the prevailing winds are blowing firmly the
other way. President Barack Obama banned solitary confinement of
juveniles in federal prison. Gov. Andrew Cuomo created a special
state prison to house 16- and 17-year-olds. Even New York City's
notorious Rikers Island has ended "disciplinary segregation" for
inmates 21 and under.
In short, Onondaga County is an outlier. If we were the betting
sort, we'd bet the county is going to come out on the losing end
of this federal lawsuit.
The aim should be to set nonviolent juvenile offenders on a path
to becoming productive adults.
Two years ago, Onondaga County Executive Joanie Mahoney agreed to
end solitary confinement for juveniles at the county-run
Jamesville Correctional Facility. That only shifted the problem
to the downtown jail, run by Onondaga County Sheriff Gene Conway.
The county planned to quickly move two of the 29 teens
incarcerated there to the Hillbrook Detention Facility for
juveniles, with the rest to follow.
A more permanent solution lies in the hands of the state
Legislature. New York and North Carolina are the only two states
that automatically treat 16- and 17-year-olds as adults in the
criminal justice system, no matter how minor their offenses. This
puts teens into lockups with adults, where they are at greater
risk of sexual assault, injury and suicide, according to data
cited by the governor.
In his 2017-18 budget, Mr. Cuomo proposes "raising the age" of
criminal responsibility to 18, except for violent crimes, and
providing appropriate education, mental health treatment and
probation to youths. The aim should be to set nonviolent juvenile
offenders on a path to becoming productive adults, rather than all
but ensuring they end up in jail again or unable to find a job due
to their criminal history. Raising the age is the humane thing to
do.
There are some who feel young offenders get what they deserve, in
jail and in life. This is not only cruel; it is short-sighted.
No child should be treated in this way. Meanwhile, the costs of
treating nonviolent juvenile offenders as adults in the criminal
justice system pile ever higher for individuals, families,
communities and society.
OPTUMRX INC: "Watson" Insurance Case Transferred to D. Minn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Watson, for herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Optumrx, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company,
and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-2106 (C.D.
Cal., November 23, 2016), was transferred to the U.S. District
Court of Minnesota on March 3, 2017 under Case No. 0:17-cv-00670.
Watson is covered by a health plan provided the Defendants.
Plaintiff alleges she has received prescription drug coverage
through this plan but is obligated to make a "co-payment" when
filling a prescription. The amount the pharmacy collect from the
patient often exceeds the amount that the insurance pays the
pharmacy for the patient's prescription drug. This results in the
patient being overcharged for prescription drugs and results in
the patient paying the entire copayment and the Defendants
collecting hidden additional payments. There is no sharing of
costs between the patient and the plan. Plaintiff seeks redress
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries are health care
companies that offer health insurance plans to individuals and
employers. Plaintiff purchased health insurance through
UnitedHealth and receives pharmacy benefits.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (310) 684-2504
Fax: (855) 274-1888
Email: amansfield@whatleykallas.com
- and -
Joe R. Whatley, Jr.
Edith M. Kallas
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Fl.
New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 447-7060
Fax: (800) 922-4851
Email: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
kallas@whatleykallas.com
- and -
Henry Quillen, Esq.
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
159 Middle Street, Suite 2C
Portsmouth, NH 03801
Tel: (603) 294-1591
Fax: (800) 922-4851
Email: hquillen@whatleykallas.com
- and -
Alex T. Gray, Esq.
Nate Steel, Esq.
Scott Poynter, Esq.
STEEL, WRIGHT, GRAY & HUTCHINSON, PLLC
400 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2910
Little Rock, AR 72201
Tel: (501) 251-1587
Fax: (501) 244-2614
Email: alex@swghfirm.com
nate@swghfirm.com
scott@poynterlawgroup.com
- and -
Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq.
MAURIELLO LAW FIRM
1181 Puerta Del Sol, #120
San Clemente, CA 92673
Tel: (949) 542-3555
Fax: (949) 606-9690
Email: tomm@maurlaw.com
Defendants are represented by:
Michelle S. Grant, Esq.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
50 S 6th St Ste 1500
Mpls., MN 55402-1498
Tel: (612) 340-5671
Fax: (612) 340-2807
Email: grant.michelle@dorsey.com
ORGANIGRAM INC: Responds to Class Action Over Product Recalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Licensed marijuana producer Organigram Inc. and its parent company
Organigram Holdings Inc. (collectively, the "Company" or
"Organigram") will launch a strong defense against a proposed
class-action suit related to recent voluntary product recalls.
The Company was served with notice of the proceeding on March 6.
The proposed suit was filed with the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
by a Halifax-based law firm. The filing seeks to represent
Organigram clients who purchased and consumed medical marijuana
that was later found to contain trace elements of the pesticides
myclobutanil and bifenazate which are not approved for use by
licensed growers.
Denis Arsenault, Organigram's Chief Executive Officer, said the
Company offered all non-insured clients impacted by the voluntary
recall an account credit equal to the full purchase price of the
recalled product. He also noted that public comments made on
March 6 by the lawyer seeking to bring the action had erroneously
stated Organigram had offered refunds to its clients instead of
providing account credits and newly harvested marijuana. "We have
been in constant communication with clients who purchased recalled
product. We have been clear that Organigram will meet their needs
by providing account credits valued at 100 per cent of that
product's value and will make freshly harvested and tested product
available to them. The majority of our clients are very satisfied
with this action and are already using their credits."
"In terms of the proposed class-action suit, we intend to
vigorously defend our company and its actions related to the
product recall," stated Mr. Arsenault. "We have already engaged
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, one of Canada's leading class-action
defence law firms, to assist with our defence." The Supreme Court
of Nova Scotia will likely take a number of months to determine if
it will allow the proposed suit to proceed as a class action. "In
the meantime, our primary focus will be on meeting the needs of
our clients," he said.
Organigram recently completed a thorough investigation into events
that led to the December and January voluntary recalls. As a
result of that investigation, the company put a number of new
growing and harvesting protocols in place. All marijuana
harvested since the recall has tested negative for pesticides. "We
have also decided to post all testing results on our website,"
said Mr. Arsenault. "With the new procedures in place, we are
fully confident in our ability to deliver high-quality product to
our clients."
About Organigram Holdings Inc.
Organigram Holdings Inc. is a TSX Venture Exchange listed company
whose wholly owned subsidiary, Organigram Inc., is a licensed
producer of medical marijuana in Canada. Organigram is focused on
producing the highest quality, condition specific medical
marijuana for patients in Canada. Organigram's facility is located
in Moncton, New Brunswick and the Company is regulated by the
Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations ("ACMPR").
OVERLAND SOLUTIONS: Sanford Heisler Files Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Heisler, LLP, on March 8 disclosed that it filed a class
action against Overland Solutions, Inc. ("OSI") on behalf of its
California insurance inspectors for violations of the California
Labor Code. The complaint alleges that OSI, an industry leader in
insurance underwriting support services, willfully misclassifies
California field inspectors as independent contractors to avoid
paying inspectors wages and business expenses, despite exercising
extensive control over how inspectors perform their work.
According to the complaint filed in the California Superior Court,
County of Alameda, insurance inspectors are the field workforce in
OSI's Survey Division, and are an integral part of OSI's business.
Inspectors conduct inspections of insured property and provide
reports to OSI's clients, which are major insurance carriers
nationwide. As field representatives of OSI, inspectors go
through an extensive hiring and onboarding process, including a
rigorous background check, an orientation program, training
modules, and quizzes. On the job, inspectors are under the
control and supervision of OSI, and must follow the company's
strict Standard Operating Procedures.
"This level of control constitutes an employer-employee
relationship," says Michael Palmer -- mpalmer@sanfordheisler.com -
- Co-Chair of the Firm's Wage & Hour Practice Group. "By
mislabeling an entire workforce as non-employees, OSI tried to
avoid paying inspectors their lawful wages. This lawsuit
challenges this unfair practice and seeks to ensure that the
workers are not denied their rights and protections under the
law."
Lead Plaintiff Martin Fletscher, a current OSI insurance inspector
in California, alleges that he and other inspectors are paid only
for time spent conducting onsite inspections and writing
inspection reports. Inspectors are not paid for time spent on
various other types of work, such as training, preparing for and
scheduling the inspections, travel to and from inspection sites,
or time spent re-inspecting and re-writing reports. They are also
not reimbursed by OSI for expenses like gas and various inspection
equipment.
"As employees, Mr. Fletscher and the class are entitled to be paid
for all time worked and to reimbursements for business expenses,"
says Xinying Valerian, Senior Litigation Counsel at Sanford
Heisler. "This is wage theft, and California law does not allow
for it."
The complaint seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties and to
enjoin OSI from continuing misclassification of its workforce.
About Sanford Heisler, LLP
Sanford Heisler, LLP 00 http://www.sanfordheisler.com/-- is a
public interest class-action litigation law firm with offices in
New York, Washington, D.C, San Francisco and San Diego.
The Firm specializes in civil rights litigation, representing
plaintiffs with employment discrimination, labor and wage
violations, whistleblower, consumer fraud, and other claims. The
firm also represents individuals and has achieved particular
success in the representation of executives and attorneys in
employment disputes. More at http://www.sanfordheisler.com/or
call 202 499-5200 or email dsanford@sanfordheisler.com
PALM BEACH SCHOOL BOARD: Friedenberg Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JOAN E. FRIEDENBERG v.
SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, Case No. 9:17-cv-80221-RLR
(S.D. Fla.), moves to certify this class:
All non-safety-sensitive applicants who are applying for
employment by the Palm Beach County School District, and who
will be subject to Defendant's suspicionless drug testing as
a result of School District Policy 3.96 (the "All-Applicant
Policy").
The Complaint is a putative class action seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief, alleging that the Defendant has violated the
Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by requiring the
Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated persons to provide a
sample of their bodily fluids for suspicionless drug testing as a
condition for hiring.
Ms. Friedenberg also asks the Court to appoint her counsel as
Class Counsel.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FmfciQ7M
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James K. Green, Esq.
Nancy Udell, Esq.
JAMES K. GREEN, P.A.
Suite 1650, Esperante
222 Lakeview Ave.
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 659-2029
Facsimile: (561) 655-1357
E-mail: jkg@jameskgreenlaw.com
- and -
Adam B. Wolf, Esq.
PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE LLP
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 766-3545
Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
E-mail: awolf@prwlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Julie Ann Rico, Esq.
Shawntoyia Bernard, Esq.,
General Counsel for the School Board of
Palm Beach County
3300 Forest Hill Blvd., C323
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
E-mail: julieann.rico@palmbeachschools.org
shawntoyia.bernard@palmbeachschools.org
PENN NATIONAL: Class Certification Sought in "Wysincavage" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled WYSINCAVAGE, et al. v. PENN
NATIONAL GAMING, INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01063-MHW-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), ask the Court, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, to conditionally certify their proposed collective class
defined as:
All individuals currently or formerly employed at one of
Defendant PNG's Ohio Subsidiary Casinos, including:
Defendant COGV, Defendant TGV, Defendant DREV, and Defendant
YREV, in a tipped position for which a tip credit was
applied at any time between November 7, 2013 and the date of
a court order conditionally certifying the class.
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court for an order: (i) implementing a
procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims
is sent to the proposed class, and (ii) requiring the Defendants
to identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jw3oAYO1
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory R. Mansell, Esq.
Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
MANSELL LAW LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Telephone: (614) 610-4134
Facsimile: (513) 826-9311
E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
- and -
Matthew Coffman, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
- and -
Bradley L. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON LAW, LLC
9200 Montgomery, Rd., Suite 11A
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 834-8254
E-mail: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com
PEOPLES BANK: Cunningham Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Cunningham on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Peoples Bank and Trust Company,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00237, (W.D. Okla., March 3, 2017),
seeks to enjoin the Defendant, its affiliates, agents, and/or
other related entities from intrusive, nuisance telemarketing
practices, damages and such other and further relief pursuant to
the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Peoples Bank and Trust Company hired a third party, Reverse Live
Transfers, who commissioned a telemarketing call to a cellular
telephone number of Mr. Cunningham for the purposes of advertising
their goods and services, using an automated dialing system.
Plaintiff never consented to receive the call, which was placed to
him for telemarketing purposes.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Catalano, Esq.
David Humphreys, Esq.
Luke J. Wallace, Esq.
Paul Catalano, Esq.
HUMPHREYS WALLACE HUMPHREYS, P.C.
9202 South Toledo Avenue
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74137
Telephone: (918) 747-5300
Fax: (918) 747-5311
Email: david@hwh-law.com
luke@hwh-law.com
paul@hwh-law.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
99 High Street, Suite 304
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
Fax: (617) 830-0327
Email: anthony@broderick-law.com
ted@broderick-law.com
- and -
Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
1 South Avenue, 3rd Floor
Natick, Massachusetts 01760
Telephone: (508) 655-1415
Fax: (508) 319-3077
Email: mmccue@massattorneys.net
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Motions to Dismiss Broiler Chicken Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation has filed motions to dismiss the
actions in the case, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation,
the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 25, 2016.
Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, ten purported
class action lawsuits were filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois against Pilgrim's and 13 other
producers by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of
broiler chickens.
On October 5, 2016, the Court consolidated the complaints, for
pretrial purposes, into actions on behalf of three different
putative classes: direct purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers
and commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. These actions
are now styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.
The current operative complaints filed on behalf of each putative
class allege, among other things, a conspiracy among defendants to
reduce output and fix, increase, maintain, and stabilize the
prices of broiler chickens in violation of the U.S. antitrust laws
from the period of January 2008 to the present. The complaints on
behalf of putative classes of indirect purchasers also include
causes of action under various state consumer protection laws,
unfair competition laws and unjust enrichment common laws. The
complaints seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-
judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative class. Pilgrim's has filed motions to dismiss these
actions.
The Company is one of the largest chicken producers in the world
with operations in the United States ("U.S."), Mexico and Puerto
Rico.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Lead Plaintiff Not Yet Appointed in "Hogan" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff in the class
action complaint filed by Patrick Hogan against Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 25, 2016.
On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself
and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of Pilgrim's
stock between February 21, 2014 and October 6, 2016, filed a class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado against Pilgrim's and its named executive officers.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that Pilgrim's SEC
filings contained statements that were rendered materially false
and misleading by Pilgrim's failure to disclose that (i) the
company colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices
in the broiler-chicken market as alleged in the In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation, (ii) its conduct constituted a
violation of federal antitrust laws, (iii) Pilgrim's revenues
during the class period were the result of illegal conduct and
(iv) that Pilgrim's lacked effective internal control over
financial reporting, as well as stating that Pilgrim's industry
was anticompetitive.
The Court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff and no
consolidated class action complaint has been filed.
The Company is one of the largest chicken producers in the world
with operations in the United States ("U.S."), Mexico and Puerto
Rico.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Suit Filed in Oklahoma Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2016, that on January 27,
2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken
farmers was brought against Pilgrim's and 10 other producers in
the Eastern District of Oklahoma, alleging, among other things, a
conspiracy among the defendants to reduce competition in the
domestic market for broiler chickens. Plaintiffs' allegations are
similar to those raised in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation, and seek, among other relief, treble damages.
"We believe we have strong defenses in response to the plaintiffs'
allegations and intend to contest these actions vigorously. We
cannot predict the outcome of these actions nor when they will be
resolved. If the plaintiffs were to prevail in any of these
actions, we could be liable for damages, which could be material
and could adversely affect our financial condition or results of
operations," the Company said.
The Company is one of the largest chicken producers in the world
with operations in the United States ("U.S."), Mexico and Puerto
Rico.
PRINCE BAKERY: "Infante" Action Seeks OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Infante, on behalf of himself, and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Prince Bakery, Inc. and Anthony M.
Rusciano, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01564, (S.D. N.Y., March 2,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensation and spread of hours premiums, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.
Prince Bakery, Inc. does business as Prince Bakery located at 2418
Belmont Avenue, Bronx, New York 10458, where Infante was hired as
a porter, general helper and food packer.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone (212) 209-3933
Facsimile (212) 209-7102
Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
PRO FOOTBALL: Hall of Fame Game Class Action Returns to Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
CBS58 reports that a class action lawsuit filed against the Pro
Football Hall of Fame over the cancellation of the 2016 Hall of
Fame Game has been transferred back to Ohio.
Hall of Fame said on March 7 they will provide ticketholders: four
admission tickets to the museum; a commemorative photo of the Hall
of Fame Class of 2016; a copy of the 2016-17 Pro Football Hall of
Fame Yearbook; the right, before the general public, to purchase a
ticket for a future Pro Football Hall of Fame Enshrinement
Ceremony or Pro Football Hall of Fame Game for one year in any of
the next five years; and a one-time 30 percent discount for the
purchase of any merchandise from the museum's online store.
The ruling by the United States District Court Central District of
California Western Division was made late on March 6.
The Pro Football Hall of Fame issued the following statement:
"The Hall of Fame is pleased with the decision by Judge Terry
Hatter, Jr. to return this case to Ohio. The ruling confirms that
hearing the case in California lacked merit. The Pro Football
Hall of Fame reiterates that we share the disappointment of fans
due to the cancellation of the game. We take full responsibility
for what occurred and remain committed to reimbursing those
ticketholders adversely affected by the cancellation, as set forth
in our previously announced special reimbursement plan. It is
important to understand the decision to cancel the 2016 Hall of
Fame Game was made solely to respect player safety. The special
reimbursement plan announced shortly after the game cancellation
remains available to all qualified ticketholders to the 2016 Hall
of Fame Game who have not yet taken advantage of the offer.
Notwithstanding the language on the tickets, ticketholders will be
fully refunded the face-value of their ticket. Additionally, the
Hall of Fame will also refund all processing, shipping and
handling fees, pre-paid parking purchased through the Hall of
Fame, pre-sale reservation fees, and one night of hotel
accommodations to eligible fans, subject to appropriate review,
approval, and verification."
Full information and details about how to take advantage of the
reimbursement plan can be found online at
http://www.profootballhof.com/GameRefundor by calling at
844-4HOFTIX (844 446 3849).
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Class Action Over Auto Policies Revived
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey
appellate panel on March 6 vacated the dismissal of a proposed
class action accusing Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. of
improperly allowing Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to buy
automobile insurance policies they weren't eligible for, finding
that the trial court prematurely decided issues of fact.
The three-judge panel ordered plaintiff Elizabeth Lopez-Negron's
case back to trial court, saying that there were multiple matters
of knowledge, intent, feasibility and reasonableness that had been
inappropriately decided before any answer to her complaint was
filed or any fact-finding had begun.
Given that Ms. Lopez-Negron has also filed a substantially similar
whistleblower lawsuit against Progressive in New Jersey federal
court, the panel also ordered that upon remand, the trial court
must sort out whether or not it's appropriate for the state court
suit to proceed parallel to the federal one, which survived
dismissal.
Ms. Lopez-Negron's state court suit was dismissed in November 2015
for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. She
made various allegations, essentially arguing that Progressive
caused her and others to buy "health-first" automobile insurance
policies through its website, even though Medicare and Medicaid
beneficiaries like her aren't eligible for such coverage.
She also said that Progressive had improperly rejected her claims
for medical services after she was involved in a motor vehicle
crash in Philadelphia in 2010, thus forcing her to improperly
bring those claims to Medicare.
Health-first policies stem from the state's Fair Automobile
Insurance Reform Act, under which auto insurers must offer an
option for drivers to designate their health insurance providers
as primary payers of personal injury benefits, the panel said.
But Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries aren't eligible for
health-first plans because federal law requires the government
programs to be secondary payers if a primary payer -- Progressive
in the instant case -- exists.
Although Ms. Lopez-Negron is covered by Medicare, she selected,
paid for and received a health-first plan from Progressive after
applying for it on her website and because the insurer apparently
didn't know that she was on Medicare, the panel said.
After the crash, her medical bills went to Progressive, which
denied paying them because of her health-first plan. They then
went to Medicare, which paid them, apparently by mistake. Medicare
denied payment for her hospital stay at Aria Health System,
because the claims weren't submitted on time and because Aria
isn't an approved Medicare provider. Progressive eventually paid a
portion of the Aria bill, the judges said.
Ms. Lopez-Negron also sued the other driver involved in the crash,
and that driver's insurer, GEICO, settled for an undisclosed
amount. Medicare, having since discovered its error, placed a
lien on the settlement proceeds to recover what it had paid for
her bills.
Her federal lawsuit came first, in January 2014, claiming that
Progressive violated federal and New Jersey false claims acts for
rejecting medical bills and instructing her to inappropriately
submit claims to the government program. The case was unsealed in
March 2015 after the U.S. declined to intervene. New Jersey also
declined later that year.
The instant suit was filed in February 2014 and is based on the
same facts, with many allegations pulled verbatim, or nearly so,
from her federal complaint, the panel said.
The state court dismissed her suit after concluding that
Progressive's online application was adequate and provided
Medicare-covered customers with enough information to inform them
that they're not eligible for the health-first option. It also
ruled that Lopez-Negron had failed to show that Progressive had
done anything that could be considered wrong or fraudulent.
Several months later, the federal court denied dismissal, finding
that Progressive had at least three chances to prevent the sale of
health-first plans to people like Ms. Lopez-Negron. It could've
built its online application in a way to stop improper purchases;
it could've used repeated interactions between insurers and buyers
to ensure that health-first policies weren't held by federally
covered people; and it could've asked "the simple question" of
what other insurance customers had, the federal court said.
The state panel noted that the federal court's decision
strengthened their position and listed a number of possible
factual disputes, including the reasonableness of Progressive's
website design and navigation. It also said that Lopez-Negron's
fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and other claims are
best evaluated after discovery.
Jeremy E. Abay -- jabay@sackslaw.com -- a lawyer for Ms. Lopez-
Negron, told Law360 on March 7 that the favorable ruling means
that Progressive will now have to explain why it didn't follow
straightforward regulations and improperly shifted medical costs
onto consumers and taxpayers.
The panel was comprised of Appellate Division Judges Jack
Sabatino, Michael J. Haas and Heidi Willis Currier.
Progressive could not be reached for comment on March 6.
Ms. Lopez-Negron is represented by John K. Weston --
jweston@sackslaw.com -- and Jeremy E. Abay -- asacks@sackslaw.com
-- of Sacks Weston Diamond LLC and Thomas S. Biemer --
tbiemer@dilworthlaw.com -- and Jerry R. DeSiderato --
JDeSiderato@dilworthlaw.com -- of Dilworth Paxson LLP.
Progressive is represented by Michael K. Loucks --
michael.loucks@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
LLP and Carl D. Poplar of Carl D. Poplar PA.
The case is Elizabeth Lopez-Negron, et al., v. Progressive
Casualty Insurance Co., et al., case number A-1632-15T4 in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
PTC INC: Settlement Remains Pending in "Crandall" Case
------------------------------------------------------
PTC Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2016, that the settlement in the case,
Matthew Crandall v. PTC Inc. et al., is subject to execution and
final court approval of definitive settlement documentations.
The Company said, "On March 7, 2016, a putative class action
lawsuit captioned Matthew Crandall v. PTC Inc. et al., No. 1:16-
cv-10471, was filed against us and certain of our current and
former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, ostensibly on behalf of purchasers of
our stock during the period November 24, 2011 through July 29,
2015. The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, alleges (among other things) that,
during that period, PTC's public disclosures concerning
investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and
the U.S. Department of Justice into U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act matters in China (the "China Investigation") were false and/or
misleading."
"The parties have agreed to settle this lawsuit for an amount that
is not material to our results of operations and the associated
liability was accrued in our fiscal 2016 results. The settlement
is subject to execution and final court approval of definitive
settlement documentations. We cannot predict the outcome of this
action nor when it will be resolved.
PTC is a global computer software and services company. We are
organized in two primary businesses: the Internet of Things (IoT)
and Solutions.
PUTNAM INVESTMENTS: Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Heads to Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a class
action accusing Putnam Investments LLC of loading its 401(k) plan
with high-fee proprietary mutual funds is heading toward trial
(Brotherston v. Putnam Investments, LLC , D. Mass., No. 1:15-cv-
13825-WGY, 3/3/17 ).
A federal judge March 3 declined to resolve the dispute at the
summary judgment stage, citing lingering factual questions as to
whether Putnam acted imprudently or disloyally in putting its own
investment products in the 401(k) plan covering its employees. The
judge's two-page order indicated that he was still weighing how to
resolve claims that Putnam engaged in transactions prohibited by
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
At least 19 financial companies, including Morgan Stanley, Wells
Fargo and Charles Schwab Corp., have been sued in the past three
years over the in-house investment products in their 401(k) plans.
The Putnam case is the first to have been certified as a class
action and reach the summary judgment stage. Seven other cases
have survived motions to dismiss.
In the Putnam case, the judge also allowed the company's workers
to move forward with claims that the company should be forced to
turn over the profits earned from the in-house funds in its 401(k)
plan. Allowing such a claim -- referred to as "disgorgement" --
can increase the amount of money at stake in a given case.
Judges have disagreed over whether disgorgement is available in
cases over in-house 401(k) investments. The employees suing
American Century have been authorized to seek disgorgement, while
the workers suing Allianz and Deutsche Bank had their disgorgement
bids blocked, despite receiving otherwise favorable rulings.
Putnam's 401(k) plan has about 3,400 participants and $615 million
in assets, according to government filings.
Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts wrote the decision.
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP represents Putnam. Nichols
Kaster PLLP and Block & Leviton LLP represent the Putnam workers.
QUALCOMM INC: Dietrich Files Antitrust Case Over Phone Chipset
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Dietrich, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-01093, (N.D. Cal., March
2, 2017), seeks recover damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from
unjust enrichment and in violation of California state consumer
protection statutes, state antitrust and restraint of trade laws,
unfair competition law and in violation of the Cartwright Act and
Sherman Act.
Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology, such as the Code
Division Multiple Access (CDMA) standard on which network carriers
rely upon. It is the dominant producer of CDMA chipsets and holds
the largest number of Standard Essential Patents for CDMA
technology and it incorporated into virtually every relevant
cellular standard in the last several years.
Plaintiff alleges that Qualcomm has not adhered to fair,
reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms, but has instead taken
advantage of the standard-setting process to acquire and maintain
monopoly control of the modem chipset market by refusing to
license and/or impose onerous restrictions on licenses of its
patents to competing chipset makers.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
Bruce J. Wecker, Esq.
Samantha J. Stein, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 633-1908
Fax: (415) 358-4980
Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
clebsock@hausfeld.com
bsweeney@hausfeld.com
bwecker@hausfeld.com
sstein@hausfeld.com
- and -
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202)-540-7200
Fax: (202)-540-7201
Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
- and -
Gregory A. Frank, Esq.
Marvin L. Frank, Esq.
FRANK LLP
275 Madison Ave., Suite 705
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 682-1853
Fax: (212) 682-1892
Email: gfrank@frankllp.com
mfrank@frankllp.com
QUALCOMM INC: Espinosa Files Antitrust Case Over Phone Chipset
--------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Espinosa and Andrew Westley, individuals, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware company, Defendants, Case No.
5:17-cv-01112, (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2017), seeks recover damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, including
reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from unjust enrichment and in
violation of California state consumer protection statutes, state
antitrust and restraint of trade laws, unfair competition law and
in violation of the Cartwright Act and Sherman Act.
Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology, such as the Code
Division Multiple Access (CDMA) standard on which network carriers
rely upon. It is the dominant producer of CDMA chipsets and holds
the largest number of Standard Essential Patents for CDMA
technology and it incorporated into virtually every relevant
cellular standard in the last several years.
Plaintiff alleges that Qualcomm has not adhered to fair,
reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms, but has instead taken
advantage of the standard-setting process to acquire and maintain
monopoly control of the modem chipset market by refusing to
license and/or impose onerous restrictions on licenses of its
patents to competing chipset makers.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 692-0772
Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
Email: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
bc@pritzkerlevine.com
QUEENS DOLLAR: Barrera Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Chino Barrera and Oscar Vences Estrada, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Queens
Dollar Inc. and Samir Z. Dhanani, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01565, (S.D. N.Y., March 2, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid spread-of-hours premium, liquidated damages,
statutory penalties and prejudgment and post-judgment interest
pursuant to the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Queens Dollar, Inc., operates as 99 Cents Rush a retail store
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York,
with a principal place of business at 1466 Westchester Avenue,
Bronx, New York 10472. Barrera has been employed a stock person
and general helper on or around 2007, through the present.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone (212) 209-3933
Facsimile (212) 209-7102
Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
RAY SCOTT RISTER: Faces "Northrup" Suit Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Northrup, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Ray Scott Rister, Compliance
Educators, LLC and Dot Compliance Group, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-01783, (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2017), seeks damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related
regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions,
thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.
Ray Scott Rister own and operates Compliance Educators, LLC and
DOT Compliance Group, LLC through www.ExpressDOTService.com,
promoting its services to truck drivers by sending unsolicited
text ads to Plaintiff's cellular telephone via an automatic
telephone dialing system.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 524-2820
Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
E-mail: seth@pathtojsutice.com
- and -
Cory S. Fein, Esq.
CORY FEIN LAW FIRM
712 Main St., #800
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (281) 254-7717
Facsimile: (530) 748-0601
E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com
RED BLUFF: Female Athletes File Title IX Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Josh Copitch, writing for KRCR News, reports that a Title IX
complaint has been filed against Red Bluff Joint Union High School
District (RBJUHSD) claiming that the school does not give female
athletes equal access to sports programs and facilities.
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal law
that says no one in the U.S. should be excluded from participation
in, be denied the benefits of or be the subject of discrimination
in any education program or activity.
Female athletes at the high school are alleging that RBHS female
students are being denied the same level of equipment, facilities
and access as the male students at the school.
In the class action complaint, lawyers say that girls represent
52% of the student body at RBHS while boys represent 48% and yet
only 38% of the athletic participation slots at RBHS are available
to girls.
The complaint highlights several differences between the
facilities for female and male athletes including things like the
girls' softball field which the suit alleges has many holes that
pose a danger to the players, while the boys' baseball field is
well maintained.
On top of the field conditions, the court document says that the
boy's baseball program has batting cages in a metal building with
a roof where they can practice when it rains. While the girls'
team are required to practice in the gym where they can not use
softballs and must use Wiffle balls off of a tee. The girls' team
made repeated requests to the District for use of the batting
cages when the boys were not using them but they were denied.
The full court filing (attached) avers multiple instances of
unfair treatment compared to the boy's athletics.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeals Court Orders New Trial in Johnson Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Minnis, writing for Florida Record, reports that an
appellate court in Florida has ordered a new trial in a cancer-
related case in which tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds was ordered to
pay a record-high $23.6 billion judgment.
According to a report by the Courtroom View Network, the decision
comes in the wake of the widow of Michael Johnson being awarded
the amount by an Escambia County circuit-court jury after it was
established Johnson smoked cigarettes for most of his life before
dying of lung cancer.
In the suit, attorneys for Cynthia Johnson argued Reynolds'
executives conspired to hide the dangers and damages of cigarette
use, greatly contributing to her husband's nicotine addiction and
eventual demise.
In rendering its ruling, the 1st District Court of Appeal found
most of the award settled on by the 2014 jury was excessive and
fueled by an improper closing argument by plaintiff attorneys
vilifying Reynolds for simply defending itself in the litigation.
Florida Justice Reform Institute President William Large told the
Florida Record he agrees with the appellate court's order calling
for a new trial.
"The appeal case stems from the occurrence of an improper closing
argument," he said. "It's clear the plaintiffs' attorneys engaged
in such action and the verdict was a direct function of that. The
closing argument focused on clouding the minds of jurors and
directly led to the absurdly excessive award."
The case stems from a 2006 Florida Supreme Court decision
decertifying Engle v. Liggett Group Inc., a class-action tobacco
suit originally filed in 1994 in which the court found individual
cases could rely on certain jury findings in the original case,
including findings that tobacco companies had conspired to hide
the dangers of smoking from consumers.
Still, the appeals courts rendered in its verdict that
"[p]laintiffs may not denigrate defendants for contesting the very
facts that they, as plaintiffs, are required by law to prove."
The court went on to essentially use plaintiff's attorneys' own
words against them, quoting from their closing argument in which
they chastised Reynolds for failing to "come clean" on the dangers
of smoking and the methods by which the tobacco industry targeted
unsuspected consumers for much of the early 20th century.
The appellate-court opinion mentioned that a new trial on punitive
damages only came after the defense rejected its remittitur to $16
million on punitives.
The Johnson verdict dwarfs any other jury award ever rendered in
an Engle progeny case, with the largest prior award coming in 2014
in the Hubbird vs. Reynolds case ordered by the 11th Judicial
Circuit at $28 million.
As for why something wasn't said or done earlier in the Johnson
case to curb what the appellate court now sees as unwarranted
abuses toward the defense, Large seemed dumbfounded.
"I don't know what else counsel could have done to change things,"
he said. "Each time they tried to object, they were overruled.
It's often times difficult for an unpopular defendant to their get
day in court. That's why the appellate courts are often needed to
straighten things out."
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,406 Broin II Lawsuits Pending in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that as of December 31, 2016,
there were 2,406 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. There have
been no Broin II trials since 2007.
Broin v. Philip Morris, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Miami-Dade County, Fla.,
filed 1991), was a class action brought on behalf of flight
attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or ailments
caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins.
In October 1997, RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., and other cigarette manufacturer
defendants settled Broin, agreeing to pay a total of $300 million
in three annual $100 million installments, allocated among the
companies by market share, to fund research on the early detection
and cure of diseases associated with tobacco smoke. It also
required those companies to pay a total of $49 million for the
plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses.
RJR Tobacco's portion of these payments was approximately $86
million; Lorillard Tobacco's was approximately $57 million; and
B&W's was approximately $31 million. The settlement agreement,
among other things, limits the types of claims class members may
bring and eliminates claims for punitive damages. The settlement
agreement also provides that, in individual cases by class members
that are referred to as Broin II lawsuits, the defendant will bear
the burden of proof with respect to whether ETS can cause certain
specifically enumerated diseases, referred to as "general
causation." With respect to all other liability issues, including
whether an individual plaintiff's disease was caused by his or her
exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, referred to as "specific
causation," individual plaintiffs will bear the burden of proof.
On September 7, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court approved the
settlement.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 25 Smoking Class Suits Pending in U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that as of December 31, 2016,
25 class-action cases, excluding the shareholder case, were
pending in the United States against Reynolds Defendants. These
class actions seek recovery for personal injuries allegedly caused
by cigarette smoking or, in some cases, for economic damages
allegedly incurred by cigarette or e-cigarette purchasers.
In 1996, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Castano v. American
Tobacco Co. overturned the certification of a nation-wide class of
persons whose claims related to alleged addiction to tobacco
products, finding that the district court failed to properly
assess variations in the governing state laws and whether common
issues predominated over individual issues. Since the Fifth
Circuit's ruling in Castano, few smoker class-action complaints
have been certified or, if certified, have survived on appeal.
Eighteen federal courts, including two courts of appeals, and most
state courts that have considered the issue have rejected class
certification in such cases. Apart from Castano, only two smoker
class actions have been certified by a federal court - In re Simon
(II) Litigation and Schwab [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA Inc.,
both of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and were later decertified.
Class-action suits based on claims that class members are at a
greater risk of injury or injured by the use of tobacco or
exposure to ETS, or claims that seek primarily economic damages
are pending against RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, or their
affiliates or indemnitees in state or federal courts in
California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina and West Virginia.
The pending class actions against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or
indemnitees include four cases alleging that the use of the term
"lights" constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices under
state law or violates federal RICO. Such suits are pending in
state courts in Illinois and Missouri.
E-cigarette class-action cases are pending against RJR Vapor, RAI,
and other RAI affiliates in California state and federal courts.
In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Vapor, Lorillard
Tobacco, and other RAI affiliates made false and misleading claims
that e-cigarettes are less hazardous than other cigarette products
or failed to disclose that e-cigarettes expose users to certain
substances. The cases are typically filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes and seek recovery of
economic damages.
Several class actions relating to claims in advertising and
promotional materials for SFNTC's NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand
cigarettes are pending in federal courts. In general, these
plaintiffs allege that use of the words "natural," "additive-
free," or "organic" in NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT advertising and
promotional materials suggests that those cigarettes are less
harmful than other cigarettes and, for that reason, violated state
consumer protection statutes or amounted to fraud or a negligent
or intentional misrepresentation.
Additional class actions relating to alleged personal injuries
purportedly caused by use of cigarettes or exposure to ETS are
pending.
Finally, certain third-party payers have filed health-care cost
recovery actions in the form of class actions.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference Held in "Turner" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in Turner v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill., filed 2000),
the trial court certified a class of purchasers of RJR Tobacco
"lights" cigarettes in November 2001. In November 2003, the
Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a stay
pending the court's final appeal decision in the Price case
described above. The stay subsequently expired, and the court
accordingly scheduled a series of status conferences, all of which
were continued by agreement of the parties. The next status
conference was scheduled for February 22, 2017.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in "Howard" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in Howard v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill., filed
2000), the trial court certified a class of purchasers of B&W
"lights" cigarettes in December 2001. In June 2003, the trial
judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution
of the Price case. In August 2005, the Illinois Fifth District
Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order. There is
currently no activity in the case.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: June 5 Status Conference in "Collora" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in Collora v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cir. Ct. City of St. Louis, Mo., filed
2000), the trial court certified a class of purchasers of RJR
Tobacco "lights" cigarettes in December 2003. A status conference
is scheduled for June 5, 2017.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference on June 5 in "Black" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in Black v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Cir. Ct. City of St. Louis, Mo., filed
2000), a putative class action filed on behalf of a class of
purchasers of B&W "lights" cigarettes, a status conference is
scheduled for June 5, 2017.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Dismiss "Harris" Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a decision is pending on
RJR Vapor's motion to dismiss the case, Harris v. R. J. Reynolds
Vapor Co.
In Harris v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal., filed
2015), the plaintiff brought a class action against RJR Vapor on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of VUSE e-cigarettes. The
plaintiff alleges that RJR Vapor failed to advise users that they
potentially could be exposed to formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. The
plaintiff asserts failure to warn claims under California's
Proposition 65, as well as California Business & Professions Code
Sec. 17,200 et seq. and California Civil Code Sec. 1,750 et seq.
and seeks declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement,
injunctive relief and damages.
RJR Vapor moved to dismiss contending, among other things, that
plaintiff's action was governed in its entirety by Proposition 65
and that the plaintiff failed to give the 60-day pre-suit notice
required by Proposition 65, requiring that the entire case be
dismissed with prejudice. The motion to dismiss was argued on
March 2, 2016.
On September 30, 2016, the court granted RJR Vapor's motion to
dismiss but provided the plaintiff leave to amend. The plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint on October 31, 2016, and RJR
Vapor has again moved to dismiss. Oral argument occurred on
January 19, 2017. A decision is pending.
RICHARDSON STEVEDORING: Bravo Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Bravo, on behalf of himself individually, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Richardson Stevedoring and
Logistic Services Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00675, (S.D.
Tex., March 2, 2017), seeks all unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, post-judgment
interest and all such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Hector Bravo was employed by Defendants as a Rigger from August 8,
2016 to July 27, 2017. His duties consist of safety prepping for
the hoisting and moving of loads by hooking pipes to a crane.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
Houston, Texas 77054
Phone: (832) 778-8182
Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com
SAKS FIFTH: Faces Wage Class Action in New York State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reports that Saks Fifth Avenue
was hit with a class action in New York state court on March 6
accusing the high-end retailer of unlawfully deducting employees'
wages at its flagship department store in Manhattan.
Lead plaintiff Amra Divljanovic, a sales employee at Saks' 611
Fifth Ave. store, complained that the company disregarded New York
state labor law and federal Fair Labor Standards Act regulations
when it unfairly penalized sales staff and docked their pay for
returned merchandise over which the employees had no control.
SANTA FE NATURAL: Motion for Class Certification Due April 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are to file a motion for class certification by April
3, 2018, in the class action lawsuits against Santa Fe Natural
Tobacco Co., Inc. alleging "No Additive/Natural/Organic" claims,
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.
Following the FDA's August 27, 2015, warning letter to SFNTC
relating to the use of the words "natural" and "additive-free" in
the labeling, advertising and promotional materials for NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes, plaintiffs purporting to bring
claims on behalf of themselves and others have filed putative
nationwide and/or state-specific class actions against SFNTC and,
in some instances, RAI. A total of 16 such actions have been filed
in nine U.S. district courts.
In various combinations, plaintiffs in these cases generally
allege violations of state deceptive and unfair trade practice
statutes, and claim state common law fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment based on the use of
descriptors such as "natural," "organic" and "100% additive-free"
in the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of SFNTC's
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The actions seek various
categories of recovery, including economic damages, injunctive
relief (including medical monitoring and cessation programs),
interest, restitution, disgorgement, treble and punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs.
On January 6, 2016, the plaintiffs in one action filed a motion
before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") to consolidate these actions before one district court
for pretrial purposes. On April 11, 2016, the JPML ordered that
these cases be consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge
James O. Browning in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico, referred to as the transferee court, and the then-
pending and later-filed cases now are consolidated for pretrial
purposes in that court.
The cases that were filed in or transferred for pretrial purposes
to the transferee court are as follows:
* Sproule v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. S.D.
Fla., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of
a putative nationwide class of purchasers of Natural American
Spirit brand cigarettes.
* Brattain v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. N.D.
Cal., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of
a putative class of California purchasers of Natural American
Spirit brand cigarettes.
* Rothman v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
S.D.N.Y., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a putative class of New York purchasers of NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.
* Dunn v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.N.M.,
filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC on behalf of a putative
nationwide class (and Minnesota subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.
* Haksal v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.N.M.,
filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a
putative nationwide class (and California, Illinois, Minnesota,
and New Mexico subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN
SPIRIT brand cigarettes.
* Cuebas v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.,
filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a
putative nationwide class (and New York subclass) of purchasers of
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.
* Okstad v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D.
Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of
a putative nationwide class and sixteen putative state-based
subclasses (Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Illinois, Maryland, Maine, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin subclasses) of
purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.
* Ruggiero v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.D.C.,
filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a
putative nationwide class (and Maryland subclass) of purchasers of
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.
* Waldo v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D. Fla.,
filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a
putative nationwide class (and Florida subclass) of purchasers of
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.
* Grandison v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
E.D.N.Y., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a putative nationwide class (and California, Florida and
New York subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT
brand cigarettes.
* Gudmundson v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. V.I.,
filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a
putative class of U.S. Virgin Islands purchasers of NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.
* LeCompte v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.N.M.,
filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a
putative class of California purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT
brand cigarettes.
* White v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.N.M.,
filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC on behalf of a putative
nationwide class of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand
cigarettes.
* Johnston v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. S.D
Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of
a putative nationwide class (and Florida subclass) of purchasers
of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.
* Cole v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D. N.C.,
filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a
putative nationwide class (and North Carolina subclass) of
purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.
* Hebert v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D.
N.C., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC, RAI and RJR Tobacco
on behalf of a putative class of purchasers in California,
Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, Ohio and Washington of NATURAL AMERICAN
SPIRIT cigarettes, and a nationwide putative class of NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand menthol cigarette purchasers (and subclass
of such purchasers in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois and
New Mexico).
The transferee court entered a scheduling order requiring the
plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. On September
19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
naming SFNTC, RAI, and RJR Tobacco as defendants. That complaint
alleges violations of 12 states' deceptive and unfair trade
practices statutes - California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, Ohio, and West Virginia - based on the use of
descriptors such as "natural," "organic" and "100% additive-free"
in the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of SFNTC's
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. It also asserts unjust
enrichment claims under those 12 states' laws and asserts breach
of express warranty claims on behalf of a national class of
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT menthol purchasers. The state deceptive
and unfair trade practice statutory and unjust enrichment claims
are brought on behalf of state-specific classes in the 12 states
listed above and, in some instances, state-specific subclasses.
The consolidated amended complaint seeks class certification,
payment for class notice, injunctive relief, monetary damages,
prejudgment interest, statutory damages, restitution, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
On November 18, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
and a hearing on that motion is scheduled for March 22, 2017.
On January 12, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint. The transferee court's scheduling
order, as amended, provides for the plaintiffs to file a motion
for class certification by April 3, 2018, and a hearing on the
class certification motion on July 13-14, 2018.
SAS ANALYTICS: Cahoo et al. Sue Over Insurance Program Bug
----------------------------------------------------------
Patti Jo Cahoo, Kristen Mendyk and Khadija Cole, individually and
on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. SAS
Analytics Inc., Fast Enterprises, LLC and CSG Government
Solutions, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-10657 (E.D. Mich., March
2, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants, their agents, successors,
employees and other representatives, from engaging in or
continuing to engage in the design, implementation, development
and maintenance of software utilized by the Michigan's
Unemployment Insurance Agency for unemployment benefits,
restitution, damages associated with delayed benefits, punitive
damages, attorney's fees, interest, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and all other and further relief resulting from the
program's negligent design and product liability, breach of
implied warranty and in violation of the Michigan State
Constitution and the False Claim Act.
The State of Michigan's Unemployment Insurance Agency administers
unemployment insurance through automated programs designed,
implemented, and/or maintained by the Defendants. This system has
resulted in countless unemployment insurance claimants being
accused of fraud even though they did nothing wrong. The defective
programs and/or their implementation resulted in claimants being
falsely accused of intentional misrepresentation and assessed
onerous financial penalties because of multiple discrepancies
between employer and employee-reported information.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan R. Marko, Esq.
Kevin Ernst, Esq.
ERNST & MARKO LAW, PLC
645 Griswold Street, Suite 4100
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Tel: (313) 965-5555
Email: kevin@ernstmarkolaw.com
jon@ernstmarkolaw.com
- and -
Craig E. Hilborn, Esq.
HILBORN & HILBORN, P.C.
999 Haynes St., Ste. 205
Birmingham, MI 48009
Tel: (248) 642-8350
Email: craig@hilbornlaw.com
SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Romano Seeks to Certify Class Under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned ROSARIA ROMANO, on behalf
of plaintiff and a class v. SCHACHTER PORTNOY, L.L.C., Case No.
1:17-cv-01014 (E.D.N.Y.), seeks to certify a class under the
Federal Debt Collection Practices Act defined as:
(a) all natural persons with New York addresses (b) who were
sent a letter by defendant in the form represented by
Exhibit A (c) which letter was sent on or after a date one
year prior to the filing of this action, and (d) on or
before a date 21 days after the filing of this action.
Ms. Romano further asks that Shaked Law Group, PC and Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the
class.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=e1CbEYjR
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60603-3593
Telephone: (312) 739-4200
Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
E-mail: thardy@edcombs.com
- and -
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
44 Court Street, Suite 1217
Brooklyn, NY 11217
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
Facsimile: (718) 504-7555
E-mail: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Faces "Shedron" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Shedron, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Scotts Company, LLC, EG Systems, Inc.,
Scotts Miracle-Gro, Products, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-
10705, (E.D. Mich., March 6, 2017), seeks unpaid regular and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants provide lawn, tree, and shrub care and maintenance
services throughout Michigan where Plaintiff was employed as a
territory service representative between approximately May 2013
and November 2016.
Plaintiff is represented by:
David Blanchard, Esq.
BLANCHARD & WALKER
221 North Main Street, Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Tel: (734) 929-4313
Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
- and -
Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
The Hoyt Block Building - Suite 400
700 West St. Clair Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tel: (216) 781-7956
Fax: (216) 781-8061
Email: jbristol@crklaw.com
jfuchs@crklaw.com
- and -
Kevin Darnell (admissions forthcoming)
RION, RION & RION, LPA INC.
130 West Second Street, Suite 2150
Dayton, OH 45402
Tel: (937) 223-9133
Fax: (937) 223-7540
Email: kdarnell@rionlaw.com
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Still Faces Morning Song Bird Food Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company remains a defendant in the case, In
re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-
JAH-RBB, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2016.
In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were
the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been
named as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on and
after June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case
No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory
and common law claims associated with the Company's sale of wild
bird food products and a plea agreement entered into in previously
pending government proceedings associated with such sales. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, a purported class action on
behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who
purchased certain bird food products. The plaintiffs assert
hundreds of millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual,
compensatory, consequential, and restitution), punitive and treble
damages; injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest; and costs and attorneys' fees.
The Company disputes the plaintiffs' assertions and intends to
vigorously defend the consolidated action. At this point in the
proceedings, it is not currently possible to reasonably estimate a
probable loss, if any, associated with the action and,
accordingly, no reserves have been recorded in the Company's
consolidated financial statements with respect to the action.
There can be no assurance that this action, whether as a result of
an adverse outcome or as a result of significant defense costs,
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Scotts Miracle-Gro is a manufacturer and marketer of branded
consumer lawn and garden products in North America and Europe.
SCYNEXIS INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 8 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against SCYNEXIS, Inc. ("Scynexis" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:SCYX) and certain of its officers. The class action,
filed in United States District Court, District of New Jersey, and
docketed under 17-cv-01565, is on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Scynexis securities:
(1) pursuant and/or traceable to Scynexis' false and misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus, issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering on or about May 2, 2014 (the
"IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the open market between
May 2, 2014 and March 2, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by defendants'
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act")
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Scynexis securities between
May 2, 2014 and March 2, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have
until May 8, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.
Scynexis, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company that develops and
distributes intravenous drugs for the treatment of serious and
life-threatening invasive fungal infections in humans.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Scynexis's lead product SCY-078 entailed substantial
undisclosed health and safety risks; (ii) consequently, the
Company had overstated the drug's approval prospectus and/or
commercial viability; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
Scynexis's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.
On March 2, 2017, post-market, Scynexis issued a press release,
attached as Exhibit 99.1 on Form 8-K, entitled "Scynexis delays
initiation of new clinical studies using the IV formulation of
SCY-078 at FDA's request," announcing the FDA's clinical hold on
clinical trials for the intravenous formulation of the Company's
lead product candidate SCY-078. The Company stated that "[t]he
clinical hold decision was issued by the FDA following a review of
three mild-to-moderate thrombotic events in healthy volunteers
receiving the IV formulation of SCY-078 at the highest doses and
highest concentrations in a Phase 1 study." On this news,
Scynexis's share price fell $0.57, or 17.43%, to close at $2.70 on
March 3, 2017.
With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.
SEPHORA USA: Burnthorne-Martinez Moves to Certify Two Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled ALYSSA BURNTHORNE-MARTINEZ,
on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated v. SEPHORA
USA, INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-02843-YGR (N.D. Cal.), move the Court
for an order certifying these classes:
* All of Defendants' current, former and prospective
applicants for employment in the United States who applied
for a job with Defendants and for whom Defendants obtained a
background check report at any time during the period
beginning five years prior to the filing of this action and
ending on the date of the order granting class
certification; and
* All of Defendants' current, former and prospective
applicants for employment in California who applied for a
job with Defendants and for whom Defendants obtained a
background check report at any time during the period
beginning five years prior to the filing of this action and
ending on the date of the order granting class
certification.
Ms. Burnthorne-Martinez further moves for an order appointing
Setareh Law Group as class counsel.
In her complaint, Ms. Burnthorne-Martinez alleges that Sephora
performs intrusive background checks on potential employees
despite the fact that the authorization and disclosure forms
Sephora uses to obtain authorization plainly do not comply with
federal law. Specifically, she contends, the Fair Credit
Reporting Act requires that the disclosure of a background check
be "clear and conspicuous" and that it be disclosed in a
standalone document that "consists solely of the disclosure."
The Court will commence a hearing on April 4, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gFEJjjYN
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Thomas Segal, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
thomas@setarehlaw.com
SGI & CO: "Navarro" Suit Hits Illegal Calls
-------------------------------------------
Carolyn Navarro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SGI & Co. Inc., and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-01783, (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2017), seeks damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations,
specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading
Plaintiff's privacy.
SGI & Co. Inc. is a home improvement company. Defendant contacted
Plaintiff on her home telephone number in an attempt to solicit
its services.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
SHELL OIL CO: "Badger" Sues Over Wheelchair Inaccessibility
-----------------------------------------------------------
Josie Badger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Shell Oil Company, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-01762, (W.D. Penn., March 2, 2017), seeks injunctive
relief, costs of suit, reasonable attorneys fees and such other
relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Badger has visited Defendant's location at 6701 Frankstown Ave.,
Pittsburgh, PA, where she experienced unnecessary difficulty and
risk due to excessive slopes and lack of appropriate signage in
Defendant's parking facilities. Plaintiff has a mobility
disability and is limited in the major life activity of walking,
which has caused her to be dependent upon a wheelchair for
mobility.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq.
Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel: (412) 322-9243
Fax: (412) 231-0246
SHELTER MUTUAL: "Goodner" Suit Deal OK'd; Final Hearing on May 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Susan O. Hickey preliminarily approved the stipulation
and proposed settlement entered into by the parties in the lawsuit
entitled MICHAEL GOODNER and ROBBIE GOODNER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHELTER MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:14-cv-04013-SOH (W.D. Ark.).
This Settlement Class is conditionally certified for settlement
purposes only:
Persons who had a Covered Loss where the claim was paid at
less than the limit of liability (accounting for
deductible), and where Shelter or its Affiliate made an
indemnification payment that included a deduction for
estimated depreciation of labor.
Excluded from the Class are: (1) Persons who received
indemnification payment(s) for full replacement cost; (2)
Persons who received indemnification payment(s) in the full
amount of limit of liability shown on the declarations page;
(3) Shelter and its Affiliate, officers and directors; (4)
Members of the judiciary and their staff to whom this action
is assigned; and (5) Class Counsel.
"Covered Loss" means a first party insurance claim for
physical damage that occurred during the Class Period on
Arkansas homeowners insurance policy forms HO-3 (03 04);
HO-3 (01 07); HO-5 (B-826); HO-6 (03 04); HO-6 (01 07);
B-450.3; MHO (I-31.4) issued by Shelter or its Affiliate,
that resulted in an indemnity payment by Shelter or its
Affiliate under Coverage A or B.
"Affiliate" means Shelter General Insurance Company.
"Class Period" means the period of December 11, 2008 through
December 15, 2015.
Plaintiffs Michael Goodner and Robbie Goodner are preliminarily
appointed as representatives of the Settlement Class, and the
Court preliminarily finds that these attorneys for Plaintiffs
satisfy the adequacy requirement of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, and appoints such as counsel for the
Settlement Class:
Matt Keil, Esq.
John C. Goodson, Esq.
KEIL & GOODSON P.A.
406 Walnut St.
Texarkana, AR 71854
Telephone: (870) 772-4113
Facsimile: (870) 773-2967
E-mail: mkeil@kglawfirm.com
jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com
- and -
Steven E. Vowell, Esq.
William B. Putman, Esq.
TAYLOR LAW PARTNERS
303 E. Millsap Road
P.O. Box 8310
Fayetteville, AR 72703
Telephone: (479) 316-6300
E-mail: svowell@taylorlawpartners.com
- and -
Richard E. Norman, Esq.
R. Martin Weber, Jr., Esq.
CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
Three Riverway, Suite 1775
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 651-1771
Facsimile: (713) 651-1775
E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com
mweber@crowleynorman.com
- and -
A.F. "Tom" Thompson, III, Esq.
Casey Castleberry, Esq.
MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
P.O. Box 2595
Batesville, AR 72503
Telephone: (870) 793-3821
Facsimile: (870) 793-3815
E-mail: aftomt2001@yahoo.com
caseycastleberry2003@yahoo.com
- and -
Jamie Pratt, Esq.
JAMES M. PRATT, JR. P.A.
144 Washington St. NW
Camden, AR 71701
Telephone: (870) 836-7328
Facsimile: (870) 837-2405
- and -
Jason E. Roselius, Esq.
MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS, PLLC
13182 N. MacArthur Blvd.
Oklahoma City, OK 73142
Telephone: (405) 603-2222
E-mail: jason@mroklaw.com
- and -
Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq.
Richard A. Russo, Jr., Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: mmustokoff@ktmc.com
rrusso@ktmc.com
- and -
James A. Streett
STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
107 West Main Street
Russellville, AR 72801
Telephone: (479) 968-2030
Facsimile: (479) 968-6253
E-mail: james@streettlaw.com
If final approval of the Proposed Settlement is not granted, this
Order, including the description of the Settlement Class and the
preliminary appointment of the Representative Plaintiffs and Class
Counsel, will be automatically vacated, Judge Hickey said.
Kurtzman Carson Consultants will serve as the third-party
administrator of the Settlement in accordance with terms of the
Stipulation.
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing to consider the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Proposed Settlement
on May 25, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gl7EshYL
SHORE CONSTRUCTION: "Magana" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magdaleno Bibian Magana, on behalf of himself and other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Shore Construction, LLC and
Kristi Caton, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01896, (E.D. La., March
6, 2017), seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid wages, interest,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
Shore is in the business of providing labor and human resources
services for companies in the oil and gas industry, marine
construction and repair industry, and other industrial fields
where Plaintiff was employed as a rigger.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (504) 534-5005
Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
Email: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
- and -
William H. Beaumont, Esq.
3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (504) 483-8008
Email: whbeaumont@gmail.com
- and -
Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (504) 534-5005
Email: emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
SLATER & GORDON: Legal Team Raises Conflict of Interest Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the $100 million legal battle over the share-price collapse of
listed law firm Slater and Gordon has taken a bitter twist over an
allegation of a serious conflict of interest.
Slater and Gordon faces a class action led by its No.1 rival,
Maurice Blackburn, after the collapse of its share price last
year.
In court on March 6, Slater and Gordon's legal team flagged
concerns that Maurice Blackburn might have a conflict of interest
representing shareholders in a case against its biggest
competitor.
The accusation came as lawyers for debt-strapped Slater and Gordon
also revealed that it would be four weeks until they could mediate
with Maurice Blackburn with the possibility a settlement could be
reached after that time.
Maurice Blackburn launched the class action on behalf of aggrieved
shareholders in the group last year. Slater and Gordon is in
financial strife after its disastrous acquisition of UK firm
Quindell led to $1 billion-plus writedowns, a string of financial
losses and a major investigation by the Australian Securities and
Investment Commission.
The spur for the conflict-of-interest allegation was a move by
Maurice Blackburn to apply to the Federal Court for details on
Slater and Gordon's insurance policies and documents relating to
the debt-strapped law firm's rescue deal with its bankers.
Its application came after Fairfax Media revealed a rescue package
for the debt-strapped law firm will use a legal precedent to ring-
fence the company's assets from secondary creditors including
class action claimants.
Fairfax Media also revealed Slater and Gordon is expected to reach
an in-principle agreement with its bankers for a debt-for-equity
swap by March 17.
Lawyer for Slater and Gordon, Leon Zwier of Arnold Bloch Leibler,
said he had concerns about Maurice Blackburn representing
shareholders and that should also be discussed in the mediation
talks.
"It's a serious issue," Mr Zwier told the court.
"It's like asking Channel Seven to play a role in the
reconstruction in Channel Nine."
Mr Zwier added that requests to access documents relating to
Slater and Gordon's insurance and the deal it was working on with
its bankers Westpac, National Australia Bank, Barclays and Royal
Bank of Scotland, were premature given the financial state of the
company.
"If the debt is trading where the debt is said to be trading,
there is a $400 million deficiency in the senior debt," Mr Zwier
said, referring to speculation debt in the group could be onsold
for less than 30??? in the dollar.
"Now they [Maurice Blackburn] have no economic rights in the
scheme whatsoever. Their rights would be confined under Gwalia
amendments to no more than the proceeds of the insurance whatever
they are. Whether that is nothing, $10m or $100m it makes no
difference."
William Edwards, for Maurice Blackburn, told the court he was
surprised to learn of Slater and Gordon's concerns about
representation.
"There is no evidentiary basis for this claim to be made. This
firm acted as a significant advisor to Slater and Gordon in the
capital raising in 2015," Mr Edwards said.
Justice John Middleton declined to make any ruling regarding
representation, indicating he did not see it as a key issue.
"It's an interesting point but it's not like a trade competitor.
It's not quite the same situation," Justice Middleton said.
Mr Zwier said he could not confirm that March 17 was the deal
date, but asked Justice Middleton to move the next court date from
March 17 to March 20 just in case a deal was done on that day as
speculated by the press.
Justice Middleton issued no formal orders ahead of the voluntary
mediation talks.
SND OPERATING: Certification of Production Operators Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned TONY ODENBAUGH,
Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SND
OPERATING, LLC, and S N D ENERGY COMPANY, INC., Case No. 6:16-cv-
01400-RWS (E.D. Tex.), asks the Court to conditionally certify
this class:
All persons employed as Production Operators of Defendant at
any time since December 30, 2013.
Mr. Odenbaugh brought the lawsuit on behalf of certain former and
current oilfield employees of the Defendants to recover overtime
wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F5b3nvik
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jason E. Winford, Esq.
David Watkins, Esq.
JENKIS & WATKINS, P.C.
4300 MacArthur Avenue, Suite 165
Dallas, TX 75209
Telephone: (214) 378-6675
Facsimile: (214-378-6680
E-mail: jwinford@jenkinswatkins.com
dwatkins@jenkinswatkins.com
SOFIA FABULOUS: Faces "Guaman" Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Jorge Guaman, Jose Ortega Sanchez and Carlos Palaguachi, on behalf
of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class,
Plaintiffs, v. Sofia Fabulous Pizza Corp., Sofia 61st St. Corp.,
Serafina Broadway Ltd., Serafina 77 West LLC, Regency Restaurant
LLC, Serafina Meatpacking Ltd., Sofia 58th St. Corp., 1260
Restaurant Corp., Serafina White Plains LLC, Brasserie Cognac Du
Monsieur Balloon Corp., Serafina East Hampton Corp., Vittorio
Assaf a/k/a Victor Assaf and Pasquale Granato a/k/a Fabio Granato,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01615 (D. Md., March 3, 2017) seeks
to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid wages due to time-shaving,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs, unpaid spread of
hours premium and statutory penalties under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.
Defendants jointly operate an Italian restaurant chain under the
trade name "Serafina," including eleven restaurant locations in
New York State. Defendants operate the Serafina restaurants as a
single integrated enterprise.
Guaman was hired by Defendants to work as a sous chef for
Defendants' restaurant, Serafina 61st Street while Sanchez was
hired as a cook at Serafina Brasserie Cognac, located at 1740
Broadway, New York, NY 10019.
Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
SOUTH FLORIDA PIZZA: Gomez Sues Over Vehicle Expense Refund
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Gomez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. South Florida Pizza, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-20844 (S.D. Fla., March 3, 2017) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages owed, compensatory damages, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees and costs of litigation, pre-judgment and
post judgment interest and such other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.
South Florida Pizza, LLC operates 15 Domino's franchise restaurant
in Florida. Gomez was employed by Defendant as a delivery driver
at its Domino's store in Miami. Plaintiff claims vehicle expense
reimbursements from delivering pizzas. This renders his salary
lower than mandated minimum wage rates.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
PAUL McINNES LLP
601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 984-8100
Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
Email: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com
- and -
Alan D. Danz, Esq.
DANZ & KRONENGOLD, P.L.
10620 Griffin Road, Suite 201
Cooper City, FL 33328
Telephone: (954) 530-9245
Facsimile: (954) 616-5738
Email: danz@danzlaw.net
- and -
Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 997-9150
Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com
SOUTHAMPTON LLC: "Tcaciuc" Suit Seeks OT, Spread of Hours Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandru Tcaciuc, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Southampton, LLC, d/b/a Jue Lan Club and
Stratis Morfogen, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01251, (E.D. N.Y.,
March 6, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, unpaid "spread of hours" premium in excess of
ten hours and civil penalties pursuant to New York Labor Laws, New
York State Wage Theft Prevention Act and the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Southampton, LLC operates as Jeu Lan Club, a restaurant in
Southampton, New York where Tcaciuc worked as a waiter. Defendants
allegedly did not provide wage notices and wage statements, thus
failing to account Plaintiff's actual work hours.
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew Weinick, Esq.
FAMIGHETTI & WEINICK, PLLC
155 Pinelawn Road, Suite 220S
Melville, NY 11747
Tel: (631) 352-0050
- and -
Chad Levy, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 588
Sunrise, FL 33323
Tel: (954) 753-5722
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Appeals Earthquake Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine MacDonald, Esq. -- lorraine@jonesandco.nz -- of Jones &
Co., in an article for International Law Office, reports that on
September 4 2010 a magnitude 7.1 earthquake struck the Canterbury
region of New Zealand and a more lethal magnitude 6.3 aftershock
quake killed 185 people when it struck on February 22 2011. Both
caused widespread property damage. Six and seven years later,
there are many thousands of unresolved property claims.
A recent High Court judgment -- Southern Response Unresolved
Claims Group v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd ([2016]
NZHC 3105) -- has surprised some observers by allowing a
representative action of homeowners to proceed against a
government-owned earthquake insurer. The judgment is of note
because it followed an earlier refusal by the same court to give
the group leave to proceed. The second hearing was also a finely
balanced matter. The insurer has filed an appeal.
When this earthquake-related class action is compared with
securities or product liability class actions or the recent bank
fees action in New Zealand and Australia, the obvious difficulty
for the claimants is that their houses will be different, the
physical damage will be different and their resulting claims will
be different. However, this may not be a bar to a successful
class action if the cause of the alleged loss can be imputed to
the defendant treating each claim under the same policy in a
similar and identifiable way.
The first High Court judge in charge of the specially constituted
Earthquake List, Justice Miller, remarked in a paper that "We [the
High Court in the Earthquake List] hope that we would see class
actions" and "The Courts recognise that class actions are
sometimes needed if a large group of people sharing the same
interest are to secure access to justice".
The case offers the opportunity to compare the unsuccessful and
successful applications and briefly survey the landscape of such
actions.
Class actions in New Zealand
There is no class action legislation in New Zealand. A bill is in
the pipeline, but has been languishing there since the draft Class
Actions Bill and Rules was sent for consultation in 2008. A final
draft was sent to the secretary for justice in 2009, but has not
been a legislative priority, despite the issue of lack of access
to justice in the civil courts being regularly aired, including by
the chief justice of the High Court.(2)
Other reasons why this type of action is still relatively rare in
New Zealand -- at least relative to similar common law
jurisdictions -- might be the small population, the statutory bar
on personal injury litigation since the advent of the no-fault
accident compensation system and the low number of awards of
exemplary or punitive damages by the New Zealand courts (which,
when awarded, are modest).
It is not because the courts have set the threshold of what
constitutes a common interest or claim particularly high. The
expressed intention of the courts -- including the Supreme Court
-- is to provide for a flexible regime for representative actions
to take the place of multiple cases, consistent with the "just,
speedy and inexpensive determination" of proceedings.
Rule 4.24 of the High Court Rules allows such claims to proceed
where there is "the same interest in the subject matter of a
proceeding". Leave is not mandatory, but in reality most
defendants seek a declaration that the case not proceed as a class
action. The courts have overlaid non-onerous strictures onto Rule
4.24 that no defendant be deprived of a defence that would have
been available to defend a claim brought by an individual and no
one within a class should be able to succeed if he or she would
not have been able to bring an individual claim.
First High Court decision
In Southern Response Unresolved Claims Group Suing By Its
Representative Cameron James Preston v Southern Response
Earthquake Services Limited ([2016] NZHC 245, February 24 2016) a
claim was brought under two heads: breach of policy which arose
from issues relating to the interpretation and application of the
insurance policy and breach of process/the duty of good faith.
Various actions of Southern Response were pleaded in support of
the claim -- for example:
-- conditions in the 'decision packs' which were sent to
policyholders were additional to and inconsistent with the terms
of the original policy;
-- the rebuilds were done by the insurer's single nominated
contractor, with the result that rebuilds were being delayed by
many years; and
-- the building rates used by Southern Response were calculated
using bulk discounts and thus misrepresented the true cost of each
rebuild within the insurer's design repair/rebuild analysis.
Notably, by the time of the second hearing, Southern Response
submitted that it was no longer using bulk costings and was using
market rates.
Justice Mander declined the claim, stating:
"[A] representative proceeding cannot be expected to manage such a
wide range of different issues of fact and law as proposed in the
present case in the absence of the identification of the core or
predominant and overriding question or questions in dispute
between the parties which is common to the Group's membership and
will materially advance each of the members' claims."
In deciding that the threshold of common interest had not been
reached, Mander expressly left the door open for a second chance
by declining leave to proceed without prejudice to the group
filing an amended statement of claim. He foresaw the possibility
of an initial litigated group claim being decided before separate
claims, perhaps as sub-groups being dealt with afterwards:
"I also observe the possibility of dialogue between the parties to
identify appropriate sub-groupings of members' claims according to
agreed heads of issues relating to the interpretation and
application of the policy. This may provide the basis for the
determination of an initial issue or issues likely to advance the
resolution of members of that sub-group's claims before proceeding
to the individual circumstances of a member's case."
Second High Court decision
Although more detail was provided in the amended statement of
claim, there was not a wholesale change to the way that the claim
was pleaded. Rather, many of the same specific behaviours of the
insurer were pleaded as well as some new ones; but this time they
were characterised as being not merely approaches taken to the
claims, but part of a deliberate and designed "strategy"
comprising different techniques to delay, deter and ultimately
reduce the amounts payable on claims.
Justice Gendall was satisfied that the allegation of a strategy
employed by the insurer provided the group a common "spine" of the
general damages claim that allowed for a representative action:
"I accept that the common interest pleaded by the plaintiffs now
that Southern Response engaged in a deliberate strategy designed
to deceive policyholders and delay claims with a view to reducing
the financial liability that Southern Response might have to its
policyholders is a proper one for a 4.24 representative action . .
. A reasonable argument exists, as I see it that it is in
everyone's interests, including the plaintiffs' group, other
parties, and indeed Southern Response, to have this matter
properly ventilated and determined before the Court."
The litigation will presumably focus on how and whether such a
"strategy" employed by Southern Response was designed to cause
people to accept lower settlements than they were entitled to. The
strategy comprises the "litigation" claim with the individual
claims of the insureds being linked but able to be dealt with,
perhaps by way of case management after the group litigation issue
was decided. It remains to be seen how those individual claims
would be managed.
Funding and expansion of claim
At the time of the first High Court judgment, there were 46
claimants. By the time of the second judgment, the number was 41
and the original named representatives (Prestons) were among those
who had settled since the first judgment. The class now numbers
36. However, the group was given opt-in time to advertise and try
to bring in more policyholders.
A discovery direction sought by the group plaintiffs -- for
Southern Response to hand over details of its policyholders with
outstanding claims -- was declined as potentially being a breach
of confidentiality. A three-month opt-in date was directed from
the time that the solicitors for the plaintiff group can
communicate with the unresolved Southern response claimants.
The litigation funding agreement can be enquired into by a court
in every case where leave for a representative action is sought.
This agreement has unusual features: along with the common 'no
win, no fee' arrangement which attracts those who cannot fund
litigation, the funders have contracted to accept a significantly
smaller percentage than normal if the action succeeds, because
there is no dispute that there is some insurer liability -- the
question is how much. There is also a 'no worse off' funding
clause so that fees will be taken only if a policyholder ends up
with more than the insurer has already offered through its design
repair/rebuild analysis.
Comment
Southern Response was established for the sole purpose of settling
claims of domestic policyholders after the insurer AMI could not
meet its liabilities. The resultant cash bail-out to the tune of
NZ$500 million was accompanied by a restructuring of AMI and its
earthquake liabilities being transferred to Southern Response, a
government-owned entity. This is the first such class action
since the earthquake, apart from an action against the government-
owned earthquake commission which provides a capped NZ$100,000
payment to all insured homes. The government ownership is perhaps
less relevant to the observer than the notion that such run-off
claim entities may have a different incentive than ongoing
concerns, in that renewing, increasing or attracting customers is
not on the agenda. This was part of the group plaintiff's
submission at the second hearing.
After the first ruling, insurance law expert Rob Merkin told
Insurance Business that he would have been amazed if the court had
found that there was a basis for a representative action. "Each
claim depends on its own facts, relating to policy wording and the
type of damage," he was quoted as saying. He further noted:
"It is distressing that some claims have taken so long to be
resolved, but the correct response is to co-operate with insurers,
who have no interest in depriving policyholders of their
entitlements, rather than to surrender significant parts of their
claims to funding organisations who care only about profit and
whose intervention can only delay the settlement process by the
making of unrealistically large claims."
Southern Response also voiced these concerns for its policyholders
-- that the claims would be further delayed and the policyholders
would be out of pocket. It remains to be seen whether the Court
of Appeal is similarly concerned and whether any success will
encourage other class actions either arising from Christchurch or
from the recent earthquake affecting both the small town of
Kaikoura and the capital city, Wellington.
STYLE CITI: Uncounted Overtime Claimed in "Bacuilima" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Giovanny Aguilar Bacuilima, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Style Citi Fashion, Inc.,
Jaime Yoo and Sun Ok Yoo, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01638,
(S.D. N.Y., March 4, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York
Labor Laws.
Style Citi is a female fashion store owned by Jaime Yoo and Sun Ok
Yoo located at 247 W. 38th Street, Ste. 404, New York, New York
10004 where Aguilar was employed as a clothier. Defendants
allegedly failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of his hours
worked, thus failing to pay Plaintiff Aguilar for all hours he
worked.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
New York, New York 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
SUBWAY: Faces Class Action Over Meat in Chicken Sandwiches
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Storace, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that Subway is now facing a prospective class action lawsuit over
allegations that its chicken might not actually be chicken.
The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut on March 3 comes on the heels of a news report on
Canadian Broadcasting Corp.'s "Marketplace" that found about 53.6
percent of the meat in Subway's roasted chicken sandwiches has
actual chicken DNA. Subway's sweet onion chicken teriyaki
sandwich fared worse, with just 42.8 percent coming back as
chicken.
Of the fast-food eateries tested, Subway's samples were the only
ones that contained enough plant DNA to allow the lab to identify
soy species, according to the lawsuit.
The 22-page lawsuit alleges the Milford-based chain "spends a
significant amount of money to convey deceptive messages to
consumers throughout the United States." There are more than
44,000 Subway restaurants located throughout the world.
The suit was filed on behalf of Stamford resident Craig Moskowitz,
who claimed he's a frequent Subway consumer.
Mr. Moskowitz has also filed several unrelated class action suits
in recent years.
Subway had not assigned an attorney to the case as of March 6, and
no one from the company was available for comment.
Subway has fired back against the report on social media and its
website, claiming its own testing showed 99 percent of its chicken
is actual chicken while less than 1 percent is soy.
Soy is added to keep products moist and flavorful, according to
Subway.
Subway and scientists have also raised concerns about the
methodology used in the underlying report.
"[The report] used factually incorrect data to suggest the chicken
Subway serves might not be all chicken," according to a statement
on Subway's website. "The claims made in the story are false and
misleading. We use only chicken -- with added marinade, spices
and seasoning. Producing high-quality food for our customers is
our highest priority."
Mr. Moskowitz's attorney, Sergei Lemberg, told the Connecticut Law
Tribune on March 6 that his law firm has commissioned its own
study to see how much chicken is actually in Subway's products.
"We'll wait for the results and for the discovery process to shed
light on whether this chicken is or is not completely chicken,"
said Mr. Lemberg, who is the principal owner of Wilton-based
Lemberg Law.
The results of that study could "take a couple of months,"
Mr. Lemberg added. "We are looking forward to delving into the
nitty gritty of this interesting case that is important to
consumers."
The lawsuit states it's not clear how many people could be party
to the class action, noting it could exceed "hundreds of
thousands, if not millions of persons."
It's also unclear what would be needed to join the lawsuit.
"A [Subway] receipt is helpful, but I don't know at this point if
you just need a receipt," Mr. Lemberg said. "This all has to be
hashed out in the course of discovery."
The lawsuit seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages.
Mr. Moskowitz is also a plaintiff in a November lawsuit that
accuses supermarket chain Fairway of sending unauthorized text
messages to his cellphone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
SURGICAL CARE: "Bushansky" Suit Claims Merger Deal Onerous
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Surgical Care Affiliates, Inc., Andrew P.
Hayek, Todd B. Sisitsky, Thomas C. Geiser, Kenneth R. Goulet,
Frederick A. Hessler, Sharad Mansukani, Jeffrey K. Rhodes, Michael
A. Sachs and Lisa Skeete Tatum, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00211, (D. Del., March 1, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from
proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of
Surgical Care by UnitedHealth Group, rescissory damages, costs of
this action, including reasonable allowance for Plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees and granting such other and further
relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
UnitedHealth commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the
outstanding shares of Surgical Care common stock for consideration
of $2.3 billion. Plaintiff alleges that the transaction will
unlawfully divest Surgical Care's public stockholders of the
Company's assets without fully disclosing underlying the financial
valuation analyses and information in order to make a fully
informed decision whether to tender their shares in favor of the
deal.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
Wilmington, DE 19803
Tel: (302) 295-5310
- and -
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
TACOLICIOUS: Settles Former Employees' Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jay Barmann, writing for sfist.com, reports that Tacolicious, the
growing taco enterprise from founder Joe Hargrave that now has
five Bay Area locations including three in SF, is opting to settle
out of court a lawsuit originally brought by two former line cooks
alleging that they were denied overtime and legally mandated meal
breaks, and had improper deductions from their paychecks. As the
Chronicle reports, the lawsuit, which became a class action,
covers all current and former employees who worked at one of the
locations between from August 14, 2010 and July 11, 2016.
The suit was brought by the cooks in 2015, with both claiming that
they were denied overtime pay and were also not paid out for their
overtime when they both chose to quit the restaurant. In court
documents, Tacolicious says it "is not liable for any of the
claims" brought by the former employees, though Mr. Hargrave
admits to the Chronicle, "Our loose record keeping at the
beginning opened us up to the lawsuit which we recently settled,"
and he says "we've had to learn on the job" about that record
keeping since the business rapidly expanded from its Ferry
Building food stand in 2009, taking over Mr. Hargrave's former
restaurant Laiola on Chestnut Street, and soon opening on Valencia
Street thereafter.
Mr. Hargrave tells Eater, "We chose to settle because if we chose
to fight it, we'd go out of business. There's nothing we can do
about it. So it is what it is, but things aren't all they appear."
Such wage theft cases have become a bit popular of late, with
local mini-chain Burma Superstar facing a similar suit, and
newcomer Babu Ji recently announcing the closure of their New York
restaurant due to such a lawsuit.
Mr. Hargrave derisively points to the law firm that represented
the cooks, who are taking a 30 percent cut out of the settlement,
or $270,000 -- which he says is 30 times what the average employee
will receive, or approximately $9,000 apiece.
The settlement will still need to be approved in San Francisco
Superior Court, and a hearing is scheduled for March 15.
In addition to running the Tacolicious chain, which now has
locations in Palo Alto and San Jose, Mr. Hargrave also co-owns Bar
San Pancho and the tequila bar Mosto.
TARGET CORP: Faces Meal, Rest Break Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that a former Target
Corp. employee has hit the retail giant with a putative class
action in California state court, accusing the company of adopting
policies that prevent Golden State workers from taking legally
mandated meal and rest breaks.
Former Target prevention specialist Corbin Halley alleges the
company has a uniform policy of forcing nonexempt workers to
perform tasks during their meal and rest breaks in violation of
California labor statutes and the state's Unfair Competition Law,
and as a result, Target also allegedly fails to provide workers
with accurate wage statements that reflect actual hours worked.
"Defendants uniformly administered a corporate policy and practice
of failing to provide unfettered meal periods, failing to provide
unfettered rest periods and failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements," the complaint filed on
March 6 said.
Mr. Halley launched the putative class action after he worked as a
Target prevention specialist from May 2015 to December 2016,
during which he claims he was forced to stay at the store, carry a
radio with him and respond to calls during his meal and rest
breaks.
The suit alleges other Target employees were also ordered to
perform similar tasks during their breaks and were effectively
denied legally mandated breaks.
The suit seeks restitution, unpaid wages plus penalties and
attorney's fees and costs, and asks the court to certify a "rest-
break" class of California Target workers who worked 3.5 hours or
more during any shift since March 6, 2013.
The suit also seeks to certify three subclasses of Target
employees who worked in the company's California loss prevention
department. The subclasses include a class of employees who
worked for five hours or more during any shift, a class who worked
for 3.5 hours or more during any shift, and a class who worked any
amount of hours in the department.
Mr. Halley argues in the suit that there could be possibly
thousands of class members, and therefore class certification is
warranted in this case. If the class members are forced to
litigate their claims individually, Target would have an
"unconscionable advantage" with their "vastly superior financial
and legal resources," the suit said.
Mr. Halley's counsel declined to comment on March 8, and
representatives for Target didn't immediately respond on March 8
to requests for comment.
Mr. Halley is represented by Larry W. Lee --
lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- of Diversity Law Group PC, Edward W.
Choi of the Law Offices of Choi & Associates, and Thomas M. Lee of
the Lee Offices APLC.
Counsel for Target was not immediately available on March 8.
The case is Corbin Halley v. Target Corp., case number BC653367,
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles.
TATA CONSULTANCY: Heldt Seeks Certification of Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned STEVEN HELDT, BRIAN
BUCHANAN, and CHRISTOPHER SLAIGHT v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES,
LTD., Case No. 4:15-cv-01696-YGR (N.D. Cal.), move the Court to
certify two classes:
A. Hiring Class: All individuals who are not of South Asian
race or Indian national origin who sought a position with
Tata in the United States and were not hired between
April 14, 2011 and the date of class certification.
B. Termination Class: All individuals who are not of South
Asian race or Indian national origin who were employed by
Tata in the United States, were placed in an unallocated
status and were terminated between April 14, 2011 and the
date of class certification.
In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant
engages in a systematic pattern and practice of discrimination
against non-South Asians and non-Indians in hiring and employment
decisions across the United States in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
The Plaintiffs also move for an order appointing them as
representatives of the classes, and appointing their counsel as
counsel for the class.
The Court will commence a hearing on June 20, 2017, 2:00 p.m., to
consider the Motion.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AAfcDDm4
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Kotchen, Esq.
Daniel Low, Esq.
Michael von Klemperer, Esq.
KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
1745 Kalorama Road NW, Suite 101
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 471-1995
E-mail: dkotchen@kotchen.com
dlow@kotchen.com
mvk@kotchen.com
- and -
Michael F. Brown, Esq.
DVG LAW PARTNER LLC
P.O. Box 645
Neenah, WI 54957
Telephone: (920) 238-6781
Facsimile: (920) 273-6177
E-mail: mbrown@dvglawpartner.com
- and -
Steven Tidrick, Esq.
Joel Young, Esq.
THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM
2039 Shattuck Avenue #308
Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone: (510) 788-5100
Facsimile: (510) 291-3226
E-mail: sgt@tidricklaw.com
jby@tidricklaw.com
TAX GROUP CENTER: Van Elzen Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Van Elzen and Ronald Rodriguez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tax Group Center,
Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01105,
(N.D. Cal., March 3, 2017), seeks an injunction requiring
Defendant to cease all unsolicited pre-recorded calling activities
without obtaining recipient's prior express written consent to
receive calls made with such equipment, prohibiting Defendant from
contracting with any third-party for same and prohibiting
Defendant from conducting any future telemarketing activities
until it has established an internal Do Not Call List as required
by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs and such other and further relief.
Tax Group is a company that specializes in providing debt relief
solutions for consumers who are significantly indebted to the
Internal Revenue Service and promotes its services through a wide-
scale telemarketing campaign.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven L. Weinstein, Esq.
P.O. Box 27414
5101 Crockett Place
Oakland, CA 94602
Telephone: (510) 336-2181
Facsimile: (510) 336-2181
Email: steveattorney@comcast.net
- and -
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
Blake J. Dugger, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
201 S Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (877) 333-9427
Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
Email: Law@stefancoleman.com
blake@stefancoleman.com
- and -
Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 E Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, Colorado 80210
Tel: (720) 213-0676
Fax: (303) 927-0809
Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
TD BANK NA: Bakos Sues Over Unauthorized Background Check
---------------------------------------------------------
Sean David Bakos, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TD Bank N.A., Defendants, Case 3:17-cv-
00134 (D. Nev., March 2, 2017) seeks statutory damages, punitive
damages, attorney fees and such other and further relief under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Plaintiff owed the Defendant a mortgage debt. On December 17, 2012
Bakos filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding before the United
States Bankruptcy Court. Bakos was granted a discharge of his in
personam liability for debts, including any debt owed to TD Bank
NA. Despite this, TD Bank NA accessed Bakos's personal information
after the discharge by pulling or obtaining a consumer report from
a consumer reporting agency on more than one occasion after his
discharge without his authority.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher P. Burke, Esq.
702 Plumas Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
Tel: (775) 333-9277
Email: attycburke@charter.net
- and -
Scott C. Borison, Esq.
LEGG LAW FIRM, LLP
1900 S. Norfolk Rd., Suite 350
San Mateo CA 94403
Tel: (301) 620-1016
Fax: (301) 620-1018
Email: borison@legglaw.com
THREE GUYS SUPERMARKET: "Martinez" Action to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Martinez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees Plaintiff v. Three Guys Supermarket, LLC, d/b/a
C-Town Supermarket, Gladys Cepeda and Henry Cepeda, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01453, (D. N.J., March 2, 2017),
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wage mandated under New Jersey Law,
overtime wages, and liquidated damages, compensatory damages, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New jersey Wage
and Hour Law.
Three Guys Supermarket is a supermarket located in Paterson, New
Jersey, owned, operated and controlled by G. Cepeda and H. Cepeda.
Plaintiff worked as supermarket staff.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, Suite 307
New York, NY 100017
Tel: (212) 323-6980
Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
- and -
Arthur N. Chagaris, Esq.
BEATTIE PADOVANO LLC
50 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 208
Montvale, NJ 076450-0244
Tel: (201) 799-2141
Email: achagaris@beattielaw.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: "Jeffers" Suit Alleges Defective Camry Dashboards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wanda E. Jeffers and Jill J. Gibson, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Toyota Motor
Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Toyota Motor
Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 4:17-cv-00577, (D. S.C., March 2, 2017), seeks damages,
injunctive relief, compensatory damages, delay damages, attorneys'
fees and such other and further judiciary determinations and
relief resulting from breach of express and/or implied warranty
and in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Jeffers and Gibson each own a 2009 Toyota Camry. According to the
complaint, Toyota designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed,
and sold certain automobiles with defective dashboards that melt
or degrade upon prolonged exposure to the sun that don't manifest
within until after the expiration of the warranty coverage.
Toyota is a major automotive manufacturer with dealerships
throughout the United States, including South Carolina. Toyota
Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc. is in the
business of designing, manufacturing, distributing, marketing, and
selling products to consumers in the state of South Carolina and
throughout the United States.
Plaintiff is represented by:
T. Christopher Tuck, Esq.
A. Hoyt Rowell, III, Esq.
Robert S. Wood, Esq.
RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, L.L.C.
1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd.
Building A
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Tel: (843) 727-6500
E-mail: ctuck@rpwb.com
hrowell@rpwb.com
bwood@rpwb.com
- and -
Mark C. Tanenbaum, Esq.
Mia Lauren Maness, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MARK C. TANENBAUM, PA
241-243 East Bay Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Tel: (843) 577-5100
E-mail: mark@tanenbaumlaw.com
mia@tanenbaumlaw.com
- and -
George D. Jebaily, Esq.
JEBAILY LAW FIRM, P.A.
P.O. Box 1871
Florence, SC 29503-1871
Tel: (800) 667-0400
E-mail: gjebaily@jebailylaw.com
TRANSPERFECT: Faces Data Theft Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Marion Marking, writing for Slator, reports that just as co-CEO
Phil Shawe resorted to a USD100,000 legal scholarship competition
in a last ditch effort to stave off the forced sale of
TransPerfect, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit
against the New York-based language service provider (LSP).
The class action suit was filed in the Southern District of
New York by Jesse Sackin, who, based on his LinkedIn profile,
works at e-discovery provider Catalyst Repository Systems.
Mr. Sackin was an Account Executive at TransPerfect from September
2013 to December 2015.
The ex-TransPerfect employee was among thousands of current and
former staff whose W-2 information was stolen in January 2017: A
member of the LSP's accounting department fell prey to a phishing
scam and forwarded the W-2 data to cybercriminals. The data
included names, addresses, salaries, as well as bank account and
Social Security numbers.
Mr. Sackin said the stolen information was of great value to
cybercriminals and accused TransPerfect of failing to take the
necessary precautions to safeguard employee information from
unauthorized disclosure. The lawsuit pointed out the phishing
scam is a well known scheme. Furthermore, Mr. Sackin criticized
the Experian identity theft protection service that TransPerfect
offered affected employees, calling it inadequate.
A number of large companies have fallen victim to the same scam,
some of them also facing class action lawsuits. Sources within
TransPerfect stressed that the data theft was not a hack but due
to human error. As a major provider of language services to law
firms, financial institutions, and other industries where data
security is paramount, TransPerfect has to avoid even the
slightest perception that client data was or is at risk.
Certain parties at TransPerfect are trying to pin the blame for
the foul-up on bankruptcy consulting firm Alvarez & Marsal; which,
according to Delaware Online and sources within TransPerfect,
oversees the accounting department from where the W-2 data was
sent.
Alvarez & Marsal was tasked with running certain financial and
operational services by custodian Robert Pincus, who was appointed
by the court to sell TransPerfect in order to break the deadlock
between the LSP's two warring CEOs.
Slator reached out to a TransPerfect spokesperson for comment, but
has not received a response as of press time.
* * *
In February, a former employee of global translations company,
TransPerfect who is also a current member of Citizens for a Pro-
Business Delaware, filed a class action lawsuit in New York after
learning that their personal identifying information (PII) had
been disclosed to cyber-criminals, jeopardizing their identities
for the rest of their lives and leaving them questioning the
competence and viability of the court custodian to run the
thriving private business. By transferring power over the
Accounting and Payroll departments of TransPerfect to Joel Mostrom
of consulting firm Alvarez and Marsal, away from TransPerfect's
CFO and COO each with over a decade worth of experience at the
company, Court Custodian Bob Pincus appointed highly-paid
consultants who were unfamiliar with TransPerfect operations, and
failed to engage in training and take other precautions necessary
to prevent the data breach.
The end result is that countless employees had personal
information stolen -- a serious and permanent loss to their own
security and well-being. There is a growing pattern with this
case that the consultants and lawyers continue to reward
themselves at the cost of thousands of employees.
"For over a year, TransPerfect employees have warned that this
court-appointed custodian with unlimited power to interfere would
threaten the livelihood of the company and its employees," said
Chris Coffey, campaign manager for Citizens for a Pro-Business
Delaware (CPBD), the advocacy group supporting TransPerfect
employees and Delaware's incorporation-driven economy and its pro-
business reputation. They formed in April 2016 to focus on
raising awareness among Delaware residents, elected officials, and
other stakeholders about the unprecedented TransPerfect case, in
which a court has seized control of private company and empower a
Custodian to auction the firm off the highest bidder.
"Now, in light of the worst data incident in the company's
history, we are finally seeing cold hard proof that the Custodian
and the Court put profits for friends and cronies over the well-
being of the company and the employees. By cutting corners,
hiring underqualified colleagues and charging whopping $1400 per
hour for custodial costs instead of putting TransPerfect employees
first, Custodian Pincus is demonstrating flagrant negligence and
violating the rights of TransPerfect employees. We also appeal to
Judge Bouchard to take a look at their hourly rates. They are out
of whack with any other custodian in the state. This case is
turning into a boondoggle" Mr. Coffey added.
Presumably looking to steal the identities of employees, cyber-
criminals posing as TransPerfect's CFO requested 2015 W-2 form tax
information and payroll information for the period ending in
January 2015. The cyber-criminals requested names, direct deposit
bank account numbers, routing numbers, and Social Security numbers
for some thousands of current and past employees. Based on
similar cases, the damages suffered by TransPerfect current and
former employees could be claimed to exceed $48 million.
TransPerfect employees are first and foremost jolted by the
massive data breach that put their identity in risk for the rest
of their lives. But they are also questioning the growing waste of
the custodian, who makes $1,400 an hour, far exceeding the typical
$400 per hour for custodians.
The Delaware Court of Chancery ordered an appointed custodian to
sell TransPerfect after an internal dispute between company owners
earlier last year. Defendant TransPerfect Global, Inc. is a
corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware with
its principal place of business in New York, New York.
TransPerfect employs over 4,000 people around the world.
This recent lawsuit is only the tip of the iceberg. TransPerfect
employees have been battling what they see as interference in
their company for the past year -- in the courts, in the state
house and out in the community. To date, hundreds of TransPerfect
employees have banded together to fight for their jobs by forming
CPBD. The group has proposed legislation that would amend
Delaware law to require a three-year waiting period before forcing
the sale of a solvent company.
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Former Student May Opt Out of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Edermarch, writing for The New York Times, reports that
President Trump's postelection agreement to pay $25 million
appeared to settle the fraud claims arising from his defunct for-
profit education venture, Trump University. But a former student
is now asking to opt out of the settlement, a move that, if
permitted, could put the deal in jeopardy.
Lawyers for the student, Sherri Simpson of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.,
on March 6 asked a federal judge in San Diego to reject the
settlement unless former students are given an opportunity to be
excluded from the deal so they can sue Mr. Trump individually.
If the judge, Gonzalo Curiel, decides that Ms. Simpson and
potentially others should have that chance, legal experts say it
could disrupt the settlement because Mr. Trump and his lawyers saw
the deal as a way to resolve all of the claims, once and for all,
to avoid a trial and distractions to his presidency.
"If even one person could opt out of the settlement and force a
trial, that might, in fact, crater the deal," said Shaun Martin, a
professor at the University of San Diego School of Law. "I'm sure
Judge Curiel will be aware of that."
The agreement, announced in November, appeared to resolve years of
hotly contested litigation, including two federal class-action
cases in San Diego and a separate suit by Eric T. Schneiderman,
the New York attorney general. Students maintained that they were
cheated out of tuition through high-pressure sales tactics and
misleading claims about what they would learn. At one point during
the contentious case, Mr. Trump questioned Judge Curiel's
impartiality based on his Mexican heritage.
Mr. Trump, who has rejected the claims and did not acknowledge
fault in the settlement, posted on Twitter after the settlement
announcement that he "did not have the time to go through a long
but winning trial on Trump U."
Patrick Coughlin, a lawyer representing the class-action
plaintiffs, said that it was a "terrific settlement" and that the
objection seemed "politically motivated." He said he feared that
the objection could result in delays for students who have waited
years to get money back. "She could have excluded herself before
and pursued her own litigation," he said. "That time passed."
Lawyers for Mr. Trump did not respond to messages seeking comment.
March 6 was the deadline for students to file claims to
participate in the settlement, or object to it -- as in the case
of Ms. Simpson.
Her lawyers argue that a notice sent to students about the class-
action lawsuits in 2015 left the impression that they could later
request to be excluded from a settlement, but that opportunity was
not afforded to them in the agreement.
"There was precious little reason to exercise the right to opt out
at that juncture" in 2015, wrote one of Ms. Simpson's lawyers,
Gary Friedman of New York, in the objection filed on March 6.
"The case was barreling toward trial, by all accounts."
Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of
Law, said that Judge Curiel would probably give the objection
serious consideration, but that he would have to weigh it against
"substantial pressure to hold the deal together."
"A lot of work has gone into this, and people are generally
satisfied all around," Mr. Tobias said.
Plaintiffs' lawyers have said that they would waive their fees and
that they expected roughly 7,000 former students to recover half
to all of what they spent on courses.
If they are allowed, it is not clear how many former students may
seek to opt out.
In 2010, Ms. Simpson -- a lawyer who spoke out about her Trump
University experience during last year's campaign -- paid $1,495
for a three-day seminar, in which she said instructors pressured
her to sign up for the $35,000 "Gold Elite" program under the
premise that she would have access to the "resources of Mr. Trump
and his real estate organization," she wrote in a sworn statement.
She split the fee with another student, spending about $19,000 in
total, Mr. Friedman said.
But she soon grew dissatisfied when promises went unfulfilled. She
wrote, "The Gold Elite program was a scam."
UNITED FOOD: Ohlendorf Seeks Certification of Employees Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ROBBIE OHLENDORF, SANDRA
ADAMS, and all others similarly situated v. UNITED FOOD &
COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 876, Case No. 1:16-
cv-01439-PLM-PJG (W.D. Mich.), move the Court to certify this
plaintiff class:
all former, current, and future employees who signed (or
sign) dues check-off authorizations with United Food &
Commercial Workers International Union Local 876 ("Local
876" of "Union") that contain any window period that
restricts the dates on which employees can notify the Union
of their revocation and/or require that employees
communicate their revocation to Local 876 solely via
certified mail.
The class includes everyone, who comes within the class definition
at any time from June 19, 2016, to the conclusion of the action.
In the alternative, the Plaintiffs ask that the Court certify the
class or subclasses that it deems appropriate. They also ask to
be named as Class Representatives, and to appoint Amanda K.
Freeman, Esq., William L. Messenger, Esq., and Glenn M. Taubman,
Esq., as class counsel.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tRotnCb1
A copy of the Plaintiffs' brief in support of the Motion is
available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kYK3PRuK
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amanda K. Freeman, Esq.
William L. Messenger, Esq.
Glenn M. Taubman, Esq.
C/O NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK
LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC.
8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
Springfield, VA 22160
Telephone: (703) 321-8510
Facsimile: (703) 321-9319
E-mail: akf@nrtw.org
wlm@nrtw.org
gmt@nrtw.org
UNITED STATES: Sued for Denying Military Disability Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Maynard, writing for Consumer Affairs, reports that a
class action suit has been filed against the United States
military, alleging that many servicemen and women are being denied
full disability benefits.
Retired Marine Corporal Simon Soto claims that members of the U.S.
Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard are being
denied the full amount of their retroactive Combat-Related Special
Compensation (CRSC).
Denied benefits
Mr. Soto performed military duties in two tours of Iraq in a
mortuary affairs unit, processing the remains of deceased
soldiers. He claims that the experiences, which took place over
the course of 10 years of service, were often very disturbing and
left him with vivid nightmares and psychological damage. He
describes graphic scenes of bagging remains that had been blown up
and dismembered beyond recognition.
After receiving seven medals and other honors with the Marines, he
retired from active duty in April 2006 and was found by the
Department of Veterans Affairs to be 100% disabled by post-
traumatic stress disorder, which made him eligible to receive
disability payments under CRSC.
However, Mr. Soto put off receiving his benefits until June 2016,
at which time he was told that he no longer qualified for the full
amount of retroactive compensation. The suit states that the Navy
office would only pay the ex-servicemen for six of the eight and a
half years he had been entitled to after retiring.
Misinterpretation
The suit alleges that the military is misreading the CRSC's
retroactive payment cap clause to the detriment of Mr. Soto and
others like him.
It states that the six-year limit is imposed for survivor
benefits, travel costs, payments for unused leave, and retirement
pay -- but not for combat-related special compensation, such as
the disability compensation that Soto is entitled to. As a result,
Soto claims that he is eligible for eight and half years of
retroactive payments instead of six.
The suit estimates that nearly 89,000 military retirees are also
being shortchanged by the cap. It is seeking class certification
and damages of up to $10,000 per affected member. The case is
being handled by Tracy LeRoy of Sidley Austin LLP's Houston,
Texas, office.
What to do
UNITED STATES: Veterans Win Agent Orange Exposure Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
Matthew M. Burke and Chiyomi Sumida, writing for Stars and
Stripes, report that there have long been rumors that Agent Orange
was stored or used on Okinawa, but no one has been able to find
proof.
Now two servicemembers who served on the Japanese island during
the Vietnam War era have won court cases claiming they developed
ailments from exposure to the toxic defoliant.
Judges in the separate lawsuits cited specific diseases that have
been linked to Agent Orange and a lack of proof that the chemical
compound wasn't on Okinawa, based on a two-year gap in records and
other evidence.
The judges were careful to limit their rulings to the specific
cases, likely to avoid opening the door for hundreds of former
servicemembers to seek class-action status for physical problems
that may be linked to Agent Orange.
Pentagon officials referred requests for comment to the Department
of Veterans Affairs, which declined to answer questions or discuss
how many similar cases there have been in recent years.
Each case is heard on its own merits, the agency said in a
statement to Stars and Stripes.
"VA can grant a claim and award disability compensation if there
is evidence of a current disability, an in-service exposure, and a
medical nexus or link between the in-service exposure and the
subsequent development of the illness," the statement said. "VA
has no credible evidence of Agent Orange use, storage, testing, or
transportation in Okinawa, and thus no evidence to support claims
of exposure to Agent Orange during military service in Okinawa."
VALEANT PHARMA: Labajo Sues Over Harmful Sunscreen Ingredients
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Labajo and Mary Yoon, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. and Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00412, (C.D. Cal., March 3,
2017), seeks compensatory, treble and punitive damages, injunctive
relief, prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded, restitution
and all other forms of equitable monetary relief, reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses and costs of suit resulting from
Breach of Express and implied Warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud
and in violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business &
Professions Code, California's False Advertising Law and
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
Defendants manufacture, distribute, advertise and sell CeraVe
brand skin care products, including a sunscreen product marketed
for use on babies called "CeraVe Baby Sunscreen."
According to the Complaint, the front packaging of this product
indicates that it contains "naturally sourced sunscreen
ingredients" despite it containing synthetic and potentially
harmful phenoxyethanol, ethylhexylglycerin and butyloctyl
salicylate. Food and Drug Administration warned that
phenoxyethanol can depress the central nervous system and may
cause vomiting and diarrhea, which can lead to dehydration in
infants. Ethylhexylglycerin is an eye irritant and may cause
dermatitis when used on people with sensitive skin.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
jsmith@bursor.com
ykrivoshey@bursor.com
- and -
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 989-9113
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
VCA INC: "Kreiger" Suit Claims Merger Deal Onerous
--------------------------------------------------
Josh Krieger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. VCA Inc., Robert L. Antin, John M. Baumer,
John B. Chickering, Jr., John Heil, Frank Reddick, MMI Holdings,
Inc., Venice Merger Sub Inc. and Mars, Incorporated, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01790, (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2017), seeks to
enjoin Defendants from consummating the proposed acquisition of
VCA by Mars, Inc., rescinding, to the extent already implemented,
rescissory damages, costs and disbursements of this action,
including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and such other
and further equitable relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
On January 7, 2017, VCA's Board of Directors entered into a merger
deal with Mars where the shareholders of VCA will receive $93.00
in cash for each share of VCA common stock.
The merger deal allegedly locked the transactions, eliminating all
possibilities of other offers from prospective buyers.
VCA is a provider of pet health care services in the country
delivered through nearly 800 small animal veterinary hospitals in
the U.S. and Canada with a preeminent nationwide clinical
laboratory system that services almost all of North America.
Robert L. Antin, John M. Baumer, John B. Chickering, Jr., John
Heil and Frank Reddick sit in the board.
Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
- and -
Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (424) 256-2884
Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
Email: brohr@faruqilaw.com
bheikali@faruqilaw.com
- and -
David E. Bower, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
Culver City, CA 90230
Tel: (213) 446-6652
Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com
VCA INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on March 7 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of holders of VCA Inc.
("VCA") (NASDAQ:WOOF) common stock in connection with the proposed
acquisition of VCA by MMI Holdings, Inc., Venice Merger Sub Inc.,
and Mars, Incorporated (collectively, "Mars") announced on January
9, 2017 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against VCA, its
Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Mars, is captioned Hight v.
VCA Inc., Case No. 17-cv-00289 (C.D. Cal.).
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl-
legal.com; or at: http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/vca-inc-
woof/.
On January 7, 2017, VCA entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Mars. Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, VCA shareholders will receive $93.00 per share in cash
in a transaction valued at approximately $9.1 billion (the
"Proposed Transaction").
Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy
statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2017. The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that VCA stockholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to
enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote
on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with
respect to VCA's financial projections and the opinions and
analyses of VCA's financial advisor. The Complaint seeks
injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders
of VCA common stock.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 8, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com--
regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and
shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in
state and federal courts throughout the United States.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Loera Sues Over Phones Charges
------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Loera, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Verizon
Communications, Inc., Frontier Communications, Inc., Does 1-100,
Inclusive, Defendant(s), Case No. 5:17-cv-00405, (C.D. Cal., March
3, 2017), seeks actual damages suffered, punitive damages,
statutory enhanced damages, reasonable and necessary attorneys'
fees and costs provided, pre- and post-judgment interest and all
other relief, general or special, legal and equitable as deemed by
the Unfair Competition Law under the California Business &
Professions Code provisions.
In or around April 2016, Defendants merged. Plaintiff alleges
Verizon Communications, Inc. and Frontier Communications, Inc.,
telecom companies, of charging interest and late fees they did not
owe as well as inexplicable cancellation fees as a part of the
rollover.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
VIZIO INC: Must Face Smart Interactivity Feature Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Bode, writing for techdirt, reports that so if you hadn't
been paying attention, most of the "smart" products you buy are
anything but intelligent when it comes to your privacy and
security. Whether it's your refrigerator leaking your gmail
credentials or your new webcam being hacked in minutes for use in
massive new DDoS attacks, the so-called "smart" home is actually
quite idiotic. So-called smart-televisions have been particularly
problematic, whether that has involved companies failing to
encrypt sensitive data, to removing features if you refuse to have
your daily viewing habits measured and monetized.
In February, Vizio joined this not-so-distinguished club when it
was discovered that the company's TVs had been spying on users for
the last several years. Vizio's $2.2 million settlement with the
FTC indicates that the company at no time thought it might be a
good idea to inform customers this was happening. The snooping
was part of a supposed "Smart Interactivity" feature deployed in
2014 that claimed to provide users with programming
recommendations, but never actually did so. In short, it wasn't
so much what Vizio was doing, it was the fact the company tried to
bullshit its way around it.
And while Vizio may have settled the FTC investigation into its
snooping televisions, the company now faces an additional class
action after a California federal judge denied the company's
motion to dismiss. The court ruled that Vizio customers' claimed
injuries were "sufficiently concrete" to bring suit under the
Video Privacy Protection and Wiretap Acts:
"Congress has determined that the interception of a person's
electronic communications and the unauthorized disclosure of a
person's video viewing history are sufficiently harmful to warrant
private causes of action," and in response to Vizio's contention
that the information it allegedly discloses is not personally
identifiable, adds, "Taken to its logical conclusion, Defendants'
argument absurdly implies that a court could never enter judgment
against a plaintiff on a VPPA claim if it found that the disclosed
information was not within the statutory definition of personally
identifiable information; instead, it would have to remand or
dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction."
U.S. District Court judge Josephine Staton also supported the
lawsuit's claim of "highly offensive" conduct by Vizio by
reiterating that the "Smart Interactivity" feature that did the
spying was difficult to disable (impossible, initially), and was
often reset after every Vizio firmware update:
"Plaintiffs point to a report by the security software company
Avast, which concluded that Smart Interactivity's "off" function
was not operational "for months, if not years." So, even if
consumers believed they had opted out of Vizio's data collection
practices, Vizio was still collecting their data for a
considerable period. In addition, Vizio's . . . Smart
Interactivity software switches back on without warning if the
Smart TV ever reverts to the factory settings -- as can occur
through Vizio's software updates. Consumers would likely not
realize for a significant period that Vizio's collection and
disclosure software has been re-enabled because the opt-out
feature is allegedly buried in an obscure settings menu."
So many of these companies wouldn't be facing settlements and
lawsuits if they'd simply been transparent about what they were
collecting in the first place. But time and time again we see
"smart" IOT vendors trying to bullshit their way around what
they're doing, bury settings that control privacy settings under
layers of intentionally intimidating menus, or simply refuse
outright to offer consumers working opt out tools in the first
place.
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Crossings Mall Flooding
------------------------------------------------------------
Kate White, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that a
lawsuit filed on March 7 claims the bank responsible for funding
the maintenance of Crossings Mall in Elkview was notified about
needed repairs to the center's sole entrance about six months
before a June 2016 flood washed the culvert away.
The complaint against U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage
Servicing and Gold Coast Partners that was filed in Kanawha County
Circuit Court on March 7 asks a judge to grant class-action status
for those who were trapped at the Crossings Mall overnight
immediately following the flood and for the people downstream from
the plaza who experienced flooding.
"There was a warning this would happen and it was a simple fix,"
said Charleston lawyer Stuart Calwell, whose firm filed the
lawsuit on behalf of George Leeson and Jacob Crum, both Elkview
residents.
Mr. Leeson now lives in a trailer on the driveway of his property.
His home is uninhabitable because of the flooding, according to
the complaint.
Mr. Crum was left stranded at the mall from the time of the
collapse of the culvert until 8 a.m. the next day.
The lawsuit states the defendants were negligent, careless and
wrongful in maintaining the culvert.
"The Defendants, and each of them, were provided with actual
knowledge of the necessity for repairs to the subject culvert, and
failed to undertake to make such repairs. The failure to act on
the warning was unreasonable and negligent," the complaint states.
The complaint also alleges that by refusing to spend what was
requested to repair the culvert, the defendants "caused property
damage to many people, shut down the center for months, deprived
the community of an important resource, left many unemployed, and
[showed] a complete lack of concern on their part for the well
being of the community."
The March 7 lawsuit doesn't include claims against mall owner Tara
Retail Group, as it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January.
Lawsuits filed while a company is in bankruptcy are put on hold.
The bankruptcy, filed in the state's Northern District, canceled a
scheduled trustee's sale of the mall and further delayed
construction of a new bridge to access the shopping plaza.
The shopping center's property is the only large retail center
within a substantial radius around Elkview and, as the March 7
complaint notes, is "a vital commercial center for residents in
the area" that still has no entrance about nine months after the
flood.
According to the complaint, in Jan. 16, 2016, Gold Coast Partners
LLC, landlord and property manager of the mall, wrote to Wells
Fargo, in charge of the escrow account for maintenance and repairs
at the shopping center, asking that $24,000 be issued to pay for
repair of the culvert -- over which the only entrance to the
shopping center passed, and to repair the "dirt cliff" behind
KMart.
"If these issues are not resolved immediately the only entrance to
the center could collapse and dirt could continue falling behind
Kmart, both scenarios could expose us, the Landlord, to personal
and injury liability cases," states the letter from Gold Coast
Partners, according to the complaint.
Wells Fargo did not authorize the repairs, the lawsuit alleges,
and neither did any other company involved with the shopping
plaza.
"It's outrageous," Mr. Calwell said on March 7. "It's honest to
God, one of the most incredible things I've seen. There was a
complete failure by the responsible parties."
WILLIE'S CHICKEN: Court Certifies Workers Class in "Sauls" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jane Triche Milazzo conditionally certifies a class in
the case styled TIFFANY SAULS AND HEATHER ARNOULT, Plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v.
Defendants WILLIE'S CHICKEN SHACK, LLC, DIAMOND BOURBON, INC.,
GOLDEN BOURBON, INC., WILLIE'S CANAL, LLC, WILLIE'S DECATUR, LLC,
WILLIE'S 630 BOURBON, LLC, WILLIE'S 409 BOURBON, LLC, WILLIE'S 707
CANAL, LLC AND AARON MOTWANI, Case No. 2:16-cv-16596-JTM-JCW (E.D.
La.).
The Class consists of all current and former hourly paid
restaurant workers, who were employed by Defendant in Willie's
Chicken Shack locations between November 26, 2013, and March 1,
2017.
The Court directs the Defendants to provide the last known names
and addresses of the potential class members to the Plaintiffs'
counsel within 14 days of the date of the Order. The Plaintiffs'
counsel will distribute the notice and consent forms, in the form
attached to the Parties' Joint Motion to the potential class
members. The Defendants must post the notice at a location
visible to employees, but not the public, at each of its Willie's
Chicken Shack locations.
Potential class members will have 90 days from the date of mailing
of the notice to opt in to the litigation as party plaintiffs.
All other deadlines in the matter are stayed to allow the parties
to complete the opt-in process in the matter, and once the opt-in
period is completed, the Court will set up a scheduling conference
with the parties to discuss new deadlines.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iwAOxOE4
* ABA Opposes Class-Action Reform Legislation
---------------------------------------------
Lee Rawles, writing for ABA Journal, reports that the American Bar
Association sent a letter on March 6 to the U.S. House of
Representatives Judiciary Committee opposing class-action reform
legislation.
In the letter sent on behalf of the ABA, Director Thomas M. Susman
of the Governmental Affairs Office says that the legislation would
"unnecessarily circumvent the Rules Enabling Act; make it more
difficult for large numbers of injured parties to efficiently seek
redress in court; and place added burdens on an already overloaded
court system."
H.R. 985, known as the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of
2017, was introduced in February by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, a
Republican from Virginia. A previous, similarly named act,
Fairness in Class Action Legislation Act of 2016, was also opposed
by the ABA.
One of the new bill's amendments would require federal courts to
deny class-action certification unless every one of the proposed
class members was affirmatively demonstrated to have "suffered the
same type and scope of injury" as the named plaintiffs or class
representatives.
"This requirement places a nearly insurmountable burden for people
who have suffered personal injury or economic loss at the hands of
large institutions with vast resources, effectively barring them
from bringing class actions," Mr. Susman wrote.
"For example," Mr. Susman continued, "in a class action against
the Veterans Administration, several veterans sued for a variety
of grievances centered on delayed claims. The requirement in this
legislation that plaintiffs suffer the same type of injuries might
have barred these litigants from forming a class because each
plaintiff suffered harms that were not the same."
Another reason Mr. Susman cited for the ABA's opposition to the
legislation was that it would "circumvent the time-proven process
for amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure established by
Congress in the Rules Enabling Act" and potentially violate the
separation of powers. Mr. Susman points out that the Judicial
Conference of the United States is already in the process of
considering changes to class action guidelines, and that the U.S.
Supreme Court's 2016 Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo decision would also
have an impact on what conditions must be met for classes to be
certified.
"Courts have the inherent authority to control the proceedings in
their courtrooms, including the power to regulate attorneys," the
letter states. "Federal statutory changes in these areas would
have substantial adverse effects on the fairness, efficiency and
timeliness of relief under class action processes, ultimately
usurping the traditional regulatory authority of the courts."
According to Mr. Susman, no hearings have been held to examine the
rule changes in the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of
2017. He urged the Judiciary Committee "to hold at least one
hearing" on the legislation before bringing it forward to floor
consideration.
* Class Action Spending Increases for Second Consecutive Year
-------------------------------------------------------------
The sixth annual Carlton Fields Class Action Survey confirms that
the increase in class action defense spending reported in last
year's survey was no anomaly. After steadily decreasing
expenditures from 2010 to 2014, spending rose in 2016 for the
second consecutive year.
Companies across multiple industries spent $2.17 billion defending
class action lawsuits in 2016, accounting for 11.2 percent of all
litigation spending in the United States. These spending
increases occurred even as the percentage of companies that
reported facing class actions on an on-going basis normalized to
53.8 percent.
"There appears to be a trending increase in the magnitude of class
actions, with companies facing increasingly higher risk and
exposure," said Julianna McCabe, director of Carlton Fields' Class
Action Survey and chair of the firm's National Class Actions
practice group. "Understandably, companies are spending more to
manage that increased exposure."
Respondents to the Carlton Fields class action survey reported the
highest increase in "bet-the-company" and "high-risk" cases, from
9.5 percent in 2015 to 25.3 percent in 2016.
Additional key survey findings include:
* As the percentage of bet-the-company and high-risk class
actions rose from 9.5 percent of matters in 2015 to 25.3 percent
in 2016, the number of companies facing bet-the-company class
actions doubled, from 8.3 percent in 2015 to 16.7 percent in 2016.
Routine class actions also increased from 28 percent in 2015 to
38.7 percent in 2016. In response to this increased activity at
both ends of the spectrum, fewer companies reported a "defend at
the right cost" philosophy, and more companies reported that they
favor a philosophy of defending at "all costs" or by "going low."
* Even as spending rose, corporate legal departments continued
to use fewer in-house attorneys to manage their caseloads. As a
result, in-house lawyers spent more time managing these cases and
companies increased their use of outside counsel.
* Labor and employment matters displaced consumer fraud as the
most common type of class action in 2016. Labor and employment
now accounts for 37.7 percent of class actions and 38.9 percent of
spending. Wage and hour claims surged, particularly in
California. Consumer fraud class actions, however, remain a
prominent part of the overall class action landscape.
* Consistent with the caseloads they are currently defending,
companies report that wage and hour cases top the list as the most
anticipated next wave of class actions (25.9 percent of
respondents), followed closely by Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA) cases (22.2 percent).
* Early case assessment has increased every year since the
survey was first conducted and is now the common practice of 98.1
percent of all companies surveyed. Each year there is also an
increase in the number of companies that make a single individual
accountable for class action outcomes, from 38 percent in 2011 to
62.2 percent in 2016.
* For the second straight year, fewer companies report using
alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) for class actions. Companies
are less likely to use AFAs for their high exposure cases as 13.2
percent use them for bet-the-company matters compared to 32.1
percent for routine cases.
Chris Coutroulis, a shareholder in the firm's National Class
Action practice, added: "Each year we see how the companies in the
class action survey evolve more sophisticated practices to manage
their cases."
The Carlton Fields Class Action Survey is widely recognized as a
powerful resource for in-house counsel who want to manage class
actions effectively and efficiently. Results of the 2017 edition
were compiled from 387 in-depth interviews with general counsel,
chief legal officers, and direct reports to general counsel of 373
companies. Participating companies had average annual revenue of
$13.8 billion and median annual revenue of $4.9 billion. The
surveyed companies operate in more than 25 industries, including
banking and financial services, consumer goods, energy, high tech,
insurance, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, professional services,
and retail.
About the Carlton Fields National Class Action Practice
Carlton Fields has litigated and counseled clients in hundreds of
class actions for more than 30 years in federal and state courts
across the nation, and in arbitrations. These cases present
unique challenges due to their different rules, enhanced scope,
and higher stakes. The firm understands the potential impacts,
costs, and risks associated with class actions, and is a leader in
developing legal approaches and strategies for handling class
action litigation.
* Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act Aims to Stem MDL Abuses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa A. Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform, in an article for The Hill, reports that fifty years ago,
federal court rules were changed to establish the current form of
class action lawsuits. That 1966 modification had the laudable
goal of making it easier for allegedly injured consumers sharing
smaller claims to seek recourse as a group. Unfortunately, over
time, entrepreneurial plaintiffs' lawyers have consistently abused
the class action device, twisting its fundamental purpose.
Today, it is lawyers, not consumers, who are the main
beneficiaries of class actions. In fact, the system has become so
dysfunctional that the amount paid to lawyers in class action
settlements is often many times the amount actually paid to all of
the thousands, and sometimes millions, of class members combined.
In some cases, lawyers get big fees, while class members get no
money at all.
For example, in the settlement of a class action lawsuit against a
computer manufacturer for alleged false advertising, the class
action lawyers received fees of $7 million. That is 14 times what
the entire class received, which was less than $500,000.
In a class action lawsuit against a beverage company for allegedly
implying in its advertising that a product called "vitaminwater"
was healthy, the class action lawyers were awarded $1.2 million in
fees. That is $1.2 million more than all of the class members
received. They got zero dollars.
The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act (H.R. 985), which
passed the House Judiciary Committee last month, would ensure this
type of abuse is eradicated so that alleged victims receive due
compensation. It would halt the current practice of courts paying
lawyers their fees before the consumers they represent are
compensated. And it would limit attorneys' fees to a reasonable
percentage of the money that reaches class members' pockets. In
short, it would ensure that the core purpose of class actions is
to compensate allegedly injured consumers, not to make lawyers
rich.
In that spirit, the bill would also require that before cases are
allowed to proceed as class actions, lawyers demonstrate that they
would be able to identify class members and actually deliver to
them whatever money may be awarded in the litigation. Further, it
would bring into the sunshine the increasingly frequent practice
of lawyers secretly selling investments in class actions, giving
away class members' money without even telling them, let alone
getting their permission.
The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act would also stem abuses
in mass tort multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceedings in which
thousands of individual personal injury cases regarding a
particular drug or medical device are placed before a single
federal judge for coordinated pre-trial activities.
Many of the cases in these mass tort MDL proceedings are generated
by pervasive television/radio/internet advertising campaigns
sponsored by plaintiffs' law firms or non-lawyer third party
"lead-generation companies." Such mass tort MDL lawsuits are
flooding our federal courts. More than 119,000 are currently
pending, accounting for 35 percent of all civil cases in our
federal court system nationwide.
Because MDL courts often don't allow close scrutiny of these
individual claims, as would occur if litigated outside an MDL
proceeding, advertisement-driven cases are often poorly vetted.
Counsel just slap a person's name on a form complaint and file it.
As one federal MDL judge recently observed in an opinion
scathingly critical of the current situation, that means many
marginal if not downright bogus claims are being filed, clogging
the system and preventing persons with legitimate claims from
getting their day in court.
In one MDL proceeding settlement several years ago, it turned out
that more than 15,000 claimants -- almost one third of all the
plaintiffs in the litigation -- were unable to show that they took
the product at issue or experienced the adverse health event that
the product allegedly caused. The Fairness in Class Action
Litigation Act would fix this problem by requiring that at the
outset, plaintiffs' lawyers submit evidence showing that they have
properly investigated a claim and provide medical records showing
injury before the case can be transferred to an MDL.
The bill would also stop the illegitimate "tricks" that some
plaintiffs' lawyers use to steer nationwide mass tort cases into
state court, even though these cases should be heard in federal
court as a matter of federal diversity jurisdiction. Right now,
some counsel direct these cases to a few "magnet" state courts
that have no relationship to the parties of the litigation, but do
have laxer rules on expert evidence. This allows the plaintiffs'
lawyers to present "junk science" evidence that would not be
permissible in federal courts, but leads to unjustified jackpot
verdicts in these magnet state courts.
This kind of abusive forum shopping is what led Congress to expand
federal jurisdiction over interstate class actions 12 years ago.
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 was bipartisan legislation
that passed the Senate on a vote of 72 to 26. Then-Sen. Barack
Obama (D-Ill.) and current Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer
(D-N.Y.) were among 17 Democratic senators who voted for that
bill.
Abuses of class actions and mass tort proceedings are a huge
problem for our federal court system, for consumers, and for
businesses.
Enacting the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 would
be a critical step toward correcting those abuses.
* * *
Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza, writing for Center for American Progress,
reports that President Donald Trump's budget proposal may
eliminate the single greatest funder of civil legal aid in the
United States, the Legal Services Corporation -- a long-standing
goal of Vice President Mike Pence. At the same time, Congress is
working to block Americans from seeking justice on their own with
the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017. This bill
was drafted to address an imaginary problem; if it passes, it will
have very real, devastating consequences.
For those who face systemic corporate abuses and failures of
government, class action lawsuits are a critical tool for seeking
justice. Through a class action, a few people or organizations
can represent a larger group that has been harmed in a lawsuit
against the perpetrator to seek a remedy, whether a change in
practices or monetary damages. Actions that aim to force actors
to change their behavior -- for example, to follow the law or
cease a bad practice -- are referred to as seeking injunctive
relief.
Currently under consideration by the House Judiciary Committee as
H.R. 985, this proposal would make it more difficult for people to
seek relief or compensation when they have been mistreated by
corporations or government agencies. Specifically, this bill would
make it harder for people to form a class by narrowing the
criteria for banding together to bring a case and complicating --
as well as delaying -- the process for collecting attorneys' fees,
making it riskier for attorneys to take on class actions to help
those who have been harmed.
The bill's proponents and its sponsor, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA),
claim the legislation would prevent so-called lawyer-driven
litigation, or litigation meant to enrich lawyers rather than
advance plaintiffs' interests. But the measures by which it
purports to do so just make bringing class actions more difficult
altogether. Moreover, if the object is to prevent lawyers from
unjust enrichment, the bill would not target the types of cases
that aim only to change practices rather than secure damages. But
it does just that -- and more.
Making it harder to form a class
The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act would require each
class member to have suffered the "same type and scope of injury."
This impractical criterion unnecessarily limits who can sue. Many
or most classes in class actions include members who have not been
injured but could have been. Moreover, to require the same type
and scope of injury all but ends class action as a category: The
same type of abuse affects different people in different ways.
That is why the Supreme Court has explicitly held that class
members need not have suffered the same damage to benefit from a
class action. In the class action case brought by retired NFL
players who suffered neurocognitive injuries as a result of
repeated concussions, for example, the players suffered a wide
variety of complications, from Parkinson's disease to Alzheimer's
disease.
People with different types of disabilities who experienced the
same problem differently and have a shared interest in relief have
routinely joined together in class actions. For example, people
with mobility-related disabilities may bring suit as a group to
ensure accessible sidewalks and transportation or to get access to
polling places. In Massachusetts, five residents who were
eligible for but had not received Medicaid services were able to
sue on behalf of all other adults with intellectual or
developmental disabilities then waiting on services. To require
strict similarity among class members would make it exceedingly
difficult for people in these critical cases to get the justice
they deserve.
Hindering advocates
This legislation would also make it riskier for lawyers to bring
class action cases. Among other things, the bill would peg
attorneys' fees in injunctive cases to "a reasonable percentage of
the value" of the relief. But how can a court calculate the
monetary value of an order to require wheelchair access or the
implementation of a nondiscrimination policy?
By setting a functionally incalculable standard for attorneys'
fees unrelated to the amount of time and work invested in a case,
the bill makes it risky for lawyers to take on cases seeking
injunctive relief. That rules out many suits under legislation
such as the Americans with Disabilities Act that aim to improve
people's lives going forward by forcing reforms rather than
seeking compensation for harms already done.
The act would also condition the payment of attorneys' fees on
full monetary recovery. In practice, this provision could
effectively deny attorneys their fees altogether. Defendants
would have an incentive to prolong litigation to make continuing
unaffordable. And even after a case is resolved, the term of a
settlement may stretch on for years. In the NFL concussion case,
for example, the settlement will take 65 years. The threat of
never receiving attorneys' fees or waiting years to collect them
would be a terrific deterrent to prospective counsel who count on
attorneys' fees to pay staff and maintain their practices.
Like all workers, lawyers deserve to be paid in a timely and
efficient fashion. And like all employers or businesses, advocacy
organizations and law firms that represent plaintiffs must count
on income to pay employees. This legislation would make it
impossible for lawyers to predict how much they will be paid and
when. This would make lawyers less likely to take on critical
cases, delaying justice for victims and allowing corporations and
other bad actors to continue their harmful practices.
Conclusion
The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 is just the
latest in a series of congressional and executive actions that
will precipitously widen the justice gap -- the gap between legal
needs and services available. The White House budget office is
preparing to propose the elimination of the Legal Services
Corporation, and under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the U.S.
Department of Justice is not likely to enforce critical
legislation -- such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Fair Housing Act -- on Americans' behalf. Sessions has already
announced his intention to limit civil rights actions against law
enforcement. Moreover, President Trump's nominee to the Supreme
Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, may be pro-defendant when it comes to
ruling on class action issues, and he outright opposes lawsuits to
enforce civil rights statutes.
Without help from government, the ability to seek justice through
other means -- such as class action suits -- will be more critical
than ever. But if it passes, H.R. 985 will represent a major step
toward closing off even this limited avenue that allows Americans
to pursue justice on their own -- and the consequences will be
devastating.
* House Set to Vote on Asbestos Claim Transparency Act
------------------------------------------------------
Tim Devaney and Lydia Wheeler, writing for The Hill, report that
the House is expected to take up legislation to set new limits on
class action lawsuits.
The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act is headed to the floor
for a vote. The bill requires proof that each proposed member of
a class action lawsuit has the same extent of injuries before the
lawsuit can be certified by a federal court.
When the bill passed the House in January 2016 in a 211 to 188
vote, it had another piece of legislation attached to it -- The
Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act. That bill created new
requirements for asbestos victims seeking compensation through the
court system.
The joint legislation never made it to the Senate.
House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) has now
reintroduced the class action bill without the asbestos claims
legislation.
In a statement, Mr. Goodlatte said the legislation is needed to
address abuses in class action litigation.
"Today, the class action litigation system has morphed into an
expensive enterprise where lawyers are often the only winners, and
American businesses and consumers are the losers," he said.
"Frivolous class action lawsuits are costing parties millions of
dollars, and trial lawyers often profit at the expense of
deserving victims."
The bill also prohibits judges from approving class actions if the
lawyer representing the class is a relative of a party in the
class action suit. It also requires that class action lawyers
only get paid after the victims and orders any third-party funding
agreement to be disclosed to the court.
The House is also expected to vote on the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction
Act, which has a companion bill in the Senate. It would penalize
lawyers who file baseless lawsuits. The House is also working on
the Innocent Party Protection Act, which would establish a uniform
standard for determining whether a defendant has been wrongly
added to a lawsuit.
On March 8, a House Science subcommittee was set also hold a
hearing on regulating outer space.
The House Judiciary Committee was also set to hold a hearing that
same day to examine proposed visa regulations by the Department of
Homeland Security.
* Investor Losses in Securities-Related Class Actions Rise
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian O'Connell, writing for InsuranceNewsNet, reports that a new
study shows investor losses in investment-related, class-action
lawsuits tripled in 2016. Given those figures, why are settlement
rates at an all-time low?
The report, issued by NERA Economic Consulting, tallied investment
losses from securities-linked, class-action suits at $468 billion.
Altogether, 300 securities-related, class-action lawsuits were
filed in 2016, according to the report. That's a 32 percent hike
over 2015, and the highest annual figure "since the aftermath of
the 2000 dot-com crash," the report found.
Lawsuits tied to corporate merger cases topped the class-action
lawsuit financial categories list, although that may be due to
state-to-state court rulings on how class-action suits are
structured.
The record number of securities class-action cases in 2016 was
largely driven by merger-objection cases, with 88 such filings,
said David Tabak, NERA's managing director. Federal merger-
objection cases, which allege a breach of fiduciary duty by
directors and officers, grew at the fastest rate since 2010.
"This recent growth is more likely due to state court decisions
limiting 'disclosure-only' settlements, rather than due to
increased merger-and-acquisition activity," Mr. Tabak added.
"Plaintiffs have begun to shift merger-objection cases to venues
outside of Delaware, though the full extent of this trend remains
to be seen."
Don't Ignore Delaware
Securities experts say the impact of the "Delaware" scenario
shouldn't be understated.
"These securities class-action figures are driven, in part, by the
recent trend in Delaware and other venues scrutinizing and
limiting so-called 'disclosure-only' settlements in merger-
objection cases," noted John Q. Lewis, business litigation chair
at Tucker Ellis in Cleveland.
What could be raising eyebrows among financial industry insiders
is that, while financial damage claims rose significantly in 2016,
lawsuit settlement amounts, such as insider trading and securities
class-action suits, were in decline. Almost 33 percent more
class-action suits were dismissed than litigated and settled, the
NERA report noted.
"The increased scrutiny of settlements has had a butterfly effect,
while case filings may be up, settlement rates are down and
dismissal rates are at an all-time high," Mr. Lewis stated. "More
of these cases are being litigated and fewer are ending with
quick-strike settlements."
While average class-action settlement figures rose by 35 percent
in 2016, that figure is likely skewed by a few "top heavy"
settlement amounts.
The average securities class-action settlement in 2016 was $72
million, more than 35 percent greater than the inflation-adjusted
2015 average settlement of $53 million.
But when you exclude the cases that settled for more than $1
billion, the average securities' lawsuit settlement in 2016 was
$43 million, about 19 percent below the 2015 average of $53
million, wrote Kevin M. LaCroix, an attorney and executive vice
president, at RT ProExec, an insurance intermediary firm, in a
recent research note.
Other Takeaways
Aside from the rise in class-action suits and declining settlement
amounts, NERA offers some additional data takeaways from its
study:
* Section 11 allegations accounted for 20 filings in 2016, which
is approximately equal to the average rate since 2010, but 23
percent lower than the rate of such filings in 2015.
* Filings continued to be concentrated in the Second and Ninth
Circuits -- with 87 case filings in the Ninth Circuit (a 20
percent increase) and an all-time high of 72 filings in the Second
Circuit. Third Circuit filings reached 34, up from 21 in 2012.
In the Fifth Circuit, 17 class actions were filed, the fewest in
four years.
* The 300 federal securities class-action suits filed in 2016
involved approximately 5.2 percent of U.S. publicly traded
companies. The average probability of a firm being targeted by a
"standard" securities class action was 3.4 percent in 2016, only
slightly higher than the recent average.
* 28 percent of the total securities class-action cases filed in
2016 (85 cases) were brought against firms in the health
technology and services sector, almost double that of 2015.
Finance sector filings made up 16 percent of total filings.
* In 94 percent of securities class actions filed in 2000-2016, a
motion to dismiss was filed. Only 15 percent of class actions
filed during this period reached a decision on a motion for class
certification.
* 674 securities class actions are pending in the federal system,
a decrease from the high of 717 in 2005.
No doubt, securities class-action lawsuits are impacted by a
laundry list of items, including state court decisions, regulatory
issues, and the reliable ebbs and flows of securities trading and
asset losses, which all factor into the process.
But in 2016, at least, those investors looking for justice from
U.S. courts should get used to disappointment in the form of fewer
dollars headed their way. But at least they'll have plenty of
company.
* Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Oppose H.R. 985
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights on March 8
issued a letter opposing H.R. 985 The Fairness in Class Action
Litigation.
The letter is as follows:
Dear Representative,
On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,
a coalition of more than 200 national advocacy organizations
charged by its diverse membership to promote and protect the
rights of all persons in the United States, we write to strongly
oppose H.R. 985, the so-called Fairness in Class Action Litigation
Act of 2017. The bill will undermine the enforcement of this
nation's civil rights laws and upend decades of settled class
action law. This sweeping and poorly drafted legislation will
create needless chaos in the courts without actually solving any
demonstrated problem. If enacted, it will have a chilling effect
on people of color, the elderly, and others to bring civil rights
class action suits.
The Leadership Conference believes that class actions are critical
for the enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination in
employment, housing, education, and access to public areas and
services. As the Supreme Court has recognized, class actions
provide "vindication of the rights of groups of people who
individually would be without effective strength to bring their
opponents into court at all." Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor,
521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997). Courts have interpreted Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the federal class action rule,
over decades and the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules has,
through its deliberative process, reviewed and amended the rule to
ensure its fair and efficient operation. No further revisions are
needed at this time.
In addition, by considering this bill now, Congress is
circumventing the process that Congress itself established for
promulgation of federal court rules under the Rules Enabling Act,
bypassing both the Judicial Conference of the United States and
the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, the Judicial Conference already
has an Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, which is currently
meeting to discuss possible changes to Rule 23. Interference with
the proper federal court rules process is reckless and
irresponsible, particularly when this proposal is so damaging to
victims.
H.R. 985 Adds Years of Additional Delay, Expense, and Disruption
The bill allows for an automatic appeal -- in the middle of every
case -- of the class certification order. Such appeals are
extraordinarily disruptive and typically add one to three years to
the life of the case. While the case sits in an appellate court,
expenses and fees rise, memories fade, and injured victims remain
without justice. Automatic appeals of all class certification
orders will clog our already-taxed Courts of Appeals. Appeals of
class certification rulings are already permitted at the
discretion of the Courts of Appeals. An appeal of every class
certification ruling is unnecessary.
The bill similarly builds in an automatic stay of discovery in the
district court whenever an alleged wrongdoer files any one of a
list of motions. This is an invitation for gamesmanship and
delay, and will deprive judges of the ability to properly manage
their cases.
The bill, by its terms, applies to all cases pending upon the date
of enactment. This means that hundreds of cases that have been
litigated and certified under existing law would start from
scratch with new standards, new class certification motions, and
new automatic interlocutory appeals. The resulting waste of
judicial resources would be enormous.
Civil Rights Injuries Are Never Identical and Are Already Subject
to Rigorous Judicial Review
H.R. 985 imposes a new and impossible hurdle for class
certification. It requires that the proponents of the class
demonstrate that "each class member has suffered the same type and
scope of injury." At this early stage of a civil rights class
action, it is frequently impossible to identify all of the victims
or the precise nature of each of their injuries.
But even if this information were knowable, class members'
injuries would not be "the same." As a simple example, those
overcharged for rent will have different injuries. In an
employment discrimination class action, the extent of a class
member's injuries will depend on a range of factors, including
their job position, tenure, employment status, salary, and length
of exposure to the discriminatory conditions. For this reason,
the Supreme Court developed a two-stage process for such cases in
International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S.
324, 371-72 (1977). In the first stage, the court determines
whether the employer engaged in a pattern or practice of
discrimination. If the employer is found liable, the court holds
individual hearings to determine the relief (if any) for each
victim. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the use of the
Teamsters model for discrimination class actions in part because
of the individualized nature of injuries. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 366 (2011). Thus, this bill would overturn
the approach established four decades ago to permit a class of
victims of discrimination to seek effective relief.
For the same reason, the bill's limitation on "issue classes" will
impede the enforcement of civil rights laws. Under current
practice, the district court will decide in some cases that the
best approach is to resolve the illegality of a discriminatory
practice in an initial proceeding, and then allow class members to
pursue individual remedies on their own. In such cases, class
certification for the core question of liability (often a complex
proceeding) will be tried and resolved just once for the benefit
of the many affected individuals. These issue classes can promote
both efficiency and fairness. The bill's proposed Section 1720,
however, would deprive courts of this ability that they currently
have to manage class actions to ensure justice.
Requiring the Early Identification of Class Members Is Unnecessary
Section 1718 seeks to impose a heightened standard for identifying
class members, an approach that has been rejected by the majority
of circuits to have considered the question. This stringent
standard would not further any interest that is not already
adequately protected by Rule 23, which requires that the court
consider whether the case is manageable and the class action
device is the "superior" method for fairly and efficiently
resolving the case.
Moreover, Sec. 1718 would impose a nearly insurmountable hurdle in
situations where a class action is the only viable way to pursue
valid but low-value claims. In such cases, records of who has
been affected may have been destroyed by the wrongdoer, may be
incomplete, or may have never existed at all. In those cases,
individual notice to all class members may be impossible. But,
without class certification in these situations, class members who
have valid claims and who can be identified would not be allowed
to recover. The bill also ignores the important objective of
deterring and punishing wrongdoing, and encourages defendants not
to maintain relevant records.
Arbitrary and Unworkable Standards for Attorneys' Fees Undermine
Civil Rights Enforcement
Civil rights class actions are often about systemic reforms that
benefit the most vulnerable. In many cases, the sole remedy is an
injunction to change illegal laws or practices. To ensure that
non-profit legal organizations and other advocates are able to
undertake these important, complex, and often risky cases, dozens
of our civil rights laws incorporate fee-shifting provisions. If
a case is successful, the judge awards a reasonable fee based upon
the time that the advocates have spent working on the case. This
method of determining attorneys' fees provides for consistent and
predictable outcomes, which is a benefit to all parties in a
lawsuit.
H.R. 985 would entirely displace this well-settled law with a
standard long ago rejected as arbitrary and unworkable. Under the
bill, attorneys' fees would be calculated as a "percentage of the
value of the equitable relief." Sec. 1718(b)(3). But how is a
judge to determine the cash value of an integrated school, a well-
operating foster care system, the deinstitutionalization of
individuals with disabilities, or myriad other forms of equitable
relief secured by civil rights class actions? Asking judges to
assign a price tag in such cases is an impossible task and would
lead to uncertainty and inconsistency.
Non-profit organizations cannot bear the risk of these long and
expensive cases if, at the end, their fees are calculated under
this incoherent and capricious standard. Indeed, the bill creates
an incentive for defendants to prolong the litigation so as to
make it economically impossible for plaintiffs' attorneys to
continue to prosecute the litigation.
When H.R. 985 comes to the floor this week, we strongly urge you
to oppose this far reaching and flawed legislation that will deny
access to justice for many and undermine the rule of law. If you
have any questions, please contact Mike Zubrensky, Chief Counsel
and Legal Director, at zubrensky@civilrights.org or (202) 869-
0380, or Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President, at
zirkin@civilrights.org or (202) 466-3311.
Sincerely,
Wade Henderson
President & CEO
Nancy Zirkin
Executive Vice President
* Some Features in Class Action Reform Bill Need Scrutiny
---------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Anscombe, Esq., and Mary Beth Buckley, Esq., of Sedgwick
LLP, in an article for Law360, report that the U.S. House of
Representatives currently has before it a bill -- H.R. 985 --
intended to "diminish abuses in class action and mass tort
litigation that are undermining the integrity of the U.S. legal
system."
As class action defense practitioners, we have seen firsthand a
lot of these class action abuses -- plaintiffs who buy products
for the sole purpose of filing law suits; plaintiffs who file
identical lawsuits on a serial basis; class counsel who make
exorbitant fee demands for little work; and defendants who settle
truly meritless claims because of the in terrorem effect of class
litigation.
Class action litigation absolutely needs reform, but there are
several features of this legislation that require very careful
scrutiny. Plaintiffs will argue for interpretations that could
perpetuate existing problems and create new ones.
Here, like a game of whack-a-mole, H.R. 985 may do more to shift
the burden of class litigation than to lighten it. It also may
reduce the personal autonomy of class members, and transform the
class device from a compensatory one (in theory, at least) to a
punitive one.
Never Underestimate the Adversaries
Plaintiff class action lawyers are generally a clever and
persistent bunch. Class litigation throws off many millions of
dollars annually in fee awards.
That means plaintiff class action lawyers have millions of reasons
to attack litigation reform, and to figure out ways to get around
it.
Here, we predict some of the things they will say about three
important features of this bill, and some additional things that
defendants should worry about.
Class Action Injury Allegations
A centerpiece of H.R. 985 is a carry-over of a bill approved by
the House last year, but which stalled in the Senate. It provides
that a court should not certify a class unless the party seeking
certification "affirmatively demonstrates that each proposed class
member suffered the same type and scope of injury as the named
class representative or representatives."
A defense reading of this provision would see an attempt to
enshrine in statute some of the holdings of Comcast v. Behrend --
a certified class should not contain uninjured members, and the
fact and amount of damages within the class should matter to the
question of class certification. But the statutory language could
leave room for argument by class counsel that H.R. 985 actually
has changed very little.
Plaintiffs will argue that "the same type and scope of injury"
refers to injury-in-fact in the constitutional sense, and that
Spokeo recognizes that even abstract injuries causing no monetary
harm will satisfy this standard. They will also argue that under
many of the statutes that foment class litigation, such as
California's UCL and Federal Statutes like FCRA and TCPA, H.R.
985's injury requirement will be satisfied any time a plaintiff is
exposed to the defendant's conduct.
And, from the standpoint of damages, plaintiffs will argue that
nearly any case brought under a consumer fraud statute will meet
this requirement. Specifically, they will argue, as they do now,
that benefit of the bargain damages uniformly exist among class
members, on the theory that purchase prices were inflated because
of the defendant's malfeasance.
If these types of arguments prevail, H.R. 985 may have only a very
modest impact on stemming class litigation.
Conflicts of Interest
Another important section of H.R. 985, "Conflicts of Interest,"
prohibits the certification of a class "in which any proposed
class representative or named plaintiff is a relative of, is a
present or former employee of, is a present or former client of,
or has any contractual relationship with class counsel."
Most courts already take the position that class representatives
with close ties to class counsel, such as familial or employment,
have conflicts of interest that render them inadequate to
represent the class. This provision could, however, put a serious
dent in the practice of certain class counsel who, time and again,
file cases listing the same class representatives.
For example, plaintiffs in TCPA cases will often appear repeatedly
as class representatives. These are the plaintiffs who view their
fax machines as gift that keeps on giving, spigots that pour out
$500 bills every time an improper fax arrives.
We expect that class counsel and their clients will raise
constitutional objections to this section of H.R. 985, but if it
is upheld, clever counsel may find ways around it. For example,
plaintiff firms that focus on repetitive case work, such as TCPA
claims, may band together to share clients, somewhat like a line
dance -- dance once and then move down to the next partner.
More concerning is how this section might intersect with the Class
Action Fairness Act. Currently, defendants can remove diversity
cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.
If H.R. 985 forbids the certification of cases based on a
preexisting relationship between class counsel and the class
representative, plaintiffs may contend that the amount in
controversy cannot be met and the case should stay in state court.
They will argue that, as a matter of law, a federal court cannot
certify a class, and therefore only the class representative's
individual claim can be considered in evaluating the
jurisdictional amount.
Defendants will argue that the amount in controversy is still met,
regardless of the impossibility of certification, just as it would
be in other kinds of cases that lack merit. Also, class counsel
may substitute class representatives once a case gets to federal
court, such that a decision to reach certification briefing with
an ineligible class representative would be a self-inflicted
wound.
Overall, this section of H.R. 985 will create some new areas of
controversy, and may slow down the onslaught of certain kinds of
cases, but probably will not have a big impact on the tide of
class litigation.
Class Member Benefits
Anyone who has followed class litigation in recent years knows
that one of the hottest controversies is whether classes have to
be "ascertainable," such that class members can be identified
through an "administratively feasible" method.
There are many good reasons for an ascertainability requirement,
and H.R. 985 offers the salutary provision that the party seeking
certification must demonstrate that "there is a reliable and
administratively feasible mechanism (a) for the court to determine
whether putative class members fall within the class definition. .
. ."
Of course, circuit courts such as the 7th and 9th have already
been very confident in their assessment that courts can develop
innovative procedures for ascertaining almost any class defined by
objective criteria, but H.R. 985's endorsement of "administrative
feasibility" should cast doubt on class member self-identification
as an acceptable practice.
All would be well if this is where H.R. 985 stopped, but it goes
on to provide "and (b) for distributing directly to a substantial
majority of class members any monetary relief secured for the
class." This "direct distribution" language appears again in
another section of HR 985, relating to the reporting of settlement
payments to the Federal Judicial Center. It suggests that the
House wants to see automatic payment of settlement and/or judgment
monies, with no claims process.
It is unclear whether this provision would apply to voucher and
coupon settlements, but regardless, it may significantly raise the
stakes in class litigation. It will also deprive absent class
members of an important right -- the right to remain uninvolved.
First, as pragmatic matter, plaintiffs, defendants and judges all
know that the vast majority of absent class members do not make
claims against settlement funds or class judgments. This is very
helpful when it comes to resolving cases, as the face value of a
settlement or judgment almost always exceeds its actual value.
It also reduces class action risk, in that the amount of a
defendant's financial exposure ultimately depends on the actual
level of interest shown by class members in recovering money.
Residual funds usually remain with or revert to the defendant,
with perhaps some form of "cy pres" distribution for a portion of
the residual balance.
H.R. 985 will bring verdict value and actual value into closer
alignment. A defendant's willingness to settle for sums
ostensibly close to the value of each class member's individual
claim will go down because the multiplier will go up. This does a
disservice to individual class members who otherwise would have
cared enough to submit claims.
And the value of certified classes will go up, as class counsel
will have less flexibility to settle claims for discounts without
facing allegations that they sold out the class. Trials are much
more likely, and verdicts will be all or nothing.
Second, the issue of personal autonomy is a serious one. Class
litigation is not universally popular. There are many reasons why
claims rates are low. Claims processes give class members a chance
to vote. Many vote "no," and do so for good reasons. For
example, class members do not support the class action based on
political, economic or personal reasons. Some do not find the
reward worth the effort of submitting a claim.
The case may involve matters of personal privacy (think Ashley
Madison, or the use of medications or products that class members
do not wish to broadcast). Many class members know that they were
not, in fact, misled or harmed, and they do not fault the
defendant. For example, many class members could care less whether
their "natural" breakfast cereal contained a GMO, or whether their
olive oil actually came from Italy as opposed to another
Mediterranean country.
H.R. 985's "direct payment" provision threatens to increase, not
reduce, the in terrorem effect of class actions. The paltry
nature of most of the offenses that underlie class actions, and
the low dollar amount of alleged harm, are big reasons why class
actions pose such risk to defendants.
Companies know that they should not poison or rob people, but in a
highly regulated economy, their moral radars are less focused on
whether the contents of their cans of tuna should be weighed in a
certain way, or that faxing a take-out menu to neighborhood
businesses is forbidden by the TCPA.
Yet such cases may survive the new hurdles imposed by H.R. 985,
and if they do, the multiplier effect of those class claims could
pose a more serious threat than they already do.
Above all, by awarding money to people who otherwise would not
care enough to claim it, H.R. 985 will impose a punitive burden on
defendants. Rule 23 is an outcome-neutral procedural device.
Compelling direct payment to people who do not feel sufficiently
aggrieved to make a claim will go a long way to transforming class
certification from a device that facilitates payment to interested
individuals, to a device that punishes defendants for conduct that
is rarely culpably in any moral sense.
Unintended Consequences
It is too optimistic to expect that clever plaintiff lawyers will
throw up their hands in surrender, opting for new careers in
dentistry or insurance. Instead, they will seek ways to double
down on defendants that keep records which make classes
"ascertainable" -- retailers, telecoms, financial institutions and
other service providers.
They will look for ways to shift class litigation to state court,
such as by using repeat class representatives. They will find
ways around the "conflict of interest" rules. And for viable
class action claims filed in federal court, the direct payment
provision of H.R. 985 will strengthen class counsels' hands to
drive harder bargains.
Perhaps this is what H.R. 985's drafters intended. We doubt it.
Now would be a good time to make sure that the statutory language
is ineluctably clear, and to consider additional or alternative
measures that would help class rein in class litigation. Abolition
of "incentive fees" and cy pres would be good places to start.
So too would provisions to facilitate the opt out process, making
exclusion as near to effortless as possible. Legal rights are
usually individual, not collective, and effective class action
reform should facilitate choice among class members who prefer to
be left alone.
*********
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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2017. 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 * * *