/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170323.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, March 23, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 59
Headlines
AAA CAB: Drivers Seek to Revive Misclassification Class Action
AARON BROTHERS: "Basile" Suit Moved to S.D. California
AARON'S INC: Class Notice Mailed in "Korrow" Case
AARON'S INC: Final Briefs Submitted in "Crystal" Suit
AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Suit Pending
AARON'S INC: "Price" Suit Remains Stayed
AARON'S INC: Class Certification Motion Denied in "Peterson"
ACADEMY LTD: Faces "Kosulandich" Suit in E.D. Missouri
ACTAVIS INC: Pension Funds File Appeal in 9th Circuit
AIR CHECK: Foday Moves for Certification of Airport Workers Class
ALCON LABORATORIES: Cert. of Classes Sought in Contact Lens MDL
ALERE INC: Arcare Sues Under Telephone Consumer Protection Act
ALLCO: Court Takes Different Approach in Shareholder Class Action
ALLERGAN PLC: Asacol(R) Litigation Remains Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Class Certification Bid Underway in Botox Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss in Loestrin(R) 24 Suit Underway
ALLERGAN PLC: Namenda(R) Class Action Lawsuits Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Litigation Still Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Suits v. Forest Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in TRT Suit in Early Stages
ALLERGAN PLC: Forest Still Faces Suit by Sales Representatives
ALLERGAN PLC: Actonel(R) Cases in Initial Stages of Discovery
ALLERGAN PLC: 4 Actonel(R) Cases Pending in Canada
ALLERGAN PLC: 1,733 Benicar(R) Cases Filed v. Forest
ALLERGAN PLC: 179 Birth Defect Suits Filed v. Forest
ALLERGAN PLC: Testosterone Product Liability Case in Discovery
ALLERGAN PLC: Generic Drug Pricing Lawsuits Consolidated
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
AMERICAN HONDA: Court Rules on Class Certification
AMERICAN PRO: April 3 Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in "Golden" Suit
ATT CORP: Hearing on Class Certification Continued in "Gadelhak"
AUDIBLE: Faces Bait-and-Switch, False Advertising Class Action
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Faces "Hegeman" Suit Under Securities Act
BASIC ENTERPRISES: "Alonzo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT Pay
BAYADA HOME: "Ivanovs" Suit Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages
BCA FINANCIAL: Certification of "Beneli" Consumer Class Sought
BOXER PROPERTY: Shelby Moves to Certify Class of Leasing Agents
BANK OF AMERICA: "Melendez" Suit Seeks OT, Asserts Discrimination
BRISTOL-MYERS: "Spengler" Lawsuit Joins MDL 2418
CALIFORNIA: Brislane Seeks Certification of Inmates Class
CALIFORNIA, USA: Court Refuses to Certify "Wade" as Class Action
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Suit over Dec. 2015 Debt Exchange Pending
CANADA: Class Action Mulled Over Rejected Qalipu Applications
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Documents Unsealed in Minimum-Wage Class Action
CARGO FORCE: "Cabanas" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA
CHICAGO, IL: KCL Seeks Certification of Classes and Subclasses
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces "Sparks" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
CHILDRENS HOSPITAL: "Kuenstle" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violation
CIRCLE IN THE SQUARE: Faces "Lasser" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CITIGROUP INC: Court Denied Certification of Collective Action
CITIZENS INC: "Gamboa" Sues Over Inflated Stock Prices
CLARENCE DAVIDS: Court Granted Certification of Class
COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA: May 10 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
COMPUMED INC: "Geismann" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
COMPUTER CREDIT: Faces "Jackson" Suit in New York Supreme Court
CONNECTICUT: Settles Class Action Over Delayed Food Stamps
DAVE & BUSTER'S: Faces "Short" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
DEVON ENERGY: "Martinez" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
DR PEPPER: "Chuang" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. District Court
ECOLAB INC: Suit by Institutional Route Sales Managers Pending
ELITE HOME: "Menichiello" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
ERIC POCEVIC: Overtime Pay Sought in "Miranda" Labor Suit
FARM NECK: Faces "Shkuratova" Suit in Massachusetts Court
FIFTH THIRD: Pre-Trial Proceedings in "Klopfenstein" Underway
FLOWERS FOODS: "Soares" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
FLOWERS FOODS: Distributors Class Certified in "Rosinbaum" Suit
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: "Taylor" Sues Over Unfair Service Charge
GAW MINERS: Audet Asks Court to Certify Default Judgment Class
GENERAL CABLE: Eley Files Suit in Kentucky, Seeks Damages
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Certified 2 Subclasses in "Mazzanti" Suit
GIBSON & SHARPS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
GOOGLE INC: Free Range Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
GOPRO INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Named Lead Counsel in Class Suit
GRAND CHINA: "Ting" Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay
GUAM INDUSTRIAL: Court Certified Class in "Carlberg" Suit
HARBOR FREIGHT: July 7 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: "Mitchell" Suit Moved to S.D. California
IMMEDIATE ACQUISITIONS: Flynn Seeks Certification of Classes
INMAN'S AUTO: "Golden" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE: Faces "Doe" Suit in District of Columbia
IXIA: Faces "Joyce" Suit Over Keysight Merger
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
MDL 2179: Nalco Still Faces Deepwater Horizon Claims
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Baker" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MERCK: July 17 Fosamax, Fosavance Claims Filing Deadline Set
METTRUM LTD: Faces 3rd Class Action Over Tainted Medical Cannabis
MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Driver Files Wage-and-Hour Class Action
NAT'L COMMERCIAL: Class Action Over Dormant Account Fees Mulled
NATIONAL CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in "Ubaldi" Case
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss Lord Abbett Suit Underway
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Settlement in "Johnson" Suit Has Initial OK
NCR CORPORATION: Certification of Customer Engineers Class Sought
NEW VISION: "Agunbiade" Suit Seeks Payment of Minimum Wage
NEWPARK RESOURCES: $0.7MM Gain from Change in Settlement Amount
NIGERIAN BOTTLING: Consumer Advocacy Foundation Mulls Class Suit
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Settles Investors' Class Suit for $165-Mil.
OAKHURST DAIRY: Truck Drivers' OT Wage Class Action Can Proceed
OLD WILLOW: Faces "Ochoa" Suit Alleging Loss of Property Value
PASSAGES MALIBU: Faces "Tapia" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violation
PATRIOT NATIONAL: Faces Two Shareholder Class Actions
PATRIOT NATIONAL: May 15 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
PCP FOR LIFE: Nurses Class Certification Sought in "Bunker" Suit
PENN CREDIT: Faces "Baker" Suit in S.D. New York
PPG INDUSTRIES: Certification of Del. Retirees Subclass Sought
PPG INDUSTRIES: "Amos" Suit Seeks to Certify Retirees Class
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Judge Okays Autism Coverage Settlement
PSCU INCORPORATED: "Davis" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
QUALCOMM INC: "Kreuzer" Files Anti-trust Case Over Phone Chipset
QUALCOMM INC: Faces "Hallahan" Suit in N.D. Cal.
QUINCY PROPERTY: Brasher Moves to Certify FLSA Collective Action
RAYONIER INC: Securities Litigation in Discovery Phase
REMINGTON ARMS: Rifle Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK
REPUBLIC OF CROATIA: Status Hearing in "Lalich" Suit on April 20
RS&H INC: "Jones" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Spying Smart TVs
SEAWORLD PARKS: Court Granted Class Certification in "Kratt" Suit
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Reed" Suit in E.D. Missouri
SHIPCOM WIRELESS: Hendrix Wants to Notify Potential Class Members
SHIPRA ENTERPRISE: "Pease" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
SHORE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SHUBERT ORGANIZATION: Faces "Lasser" Suit in S.D. New York
SMART INTERIORS: Faces "Ochoa" Suit in E.D. New York
SMG HOLDINGS: Court Denied Class Certification in "Guilford" Suit
SOLARCITY CORP: Lucero Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
SOUTHERN TUBULARS: "Villanueva" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
SPECTRANETICS CORPORATION: Securities Class Suit Underway
STANDARD INNOVATION: Settles We-Vibe Class Action for $4 Million
STONEGATE MORTGAGE: "Feinstein" Sues Over Sale to Home Point
TEACHEY PRODUCE: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
TENG FEI: Faces "Lin" Suit in Southern District of New York
TERRAFORM POWER: "Chamblee" Securities Class Action Stayed
TIRE DISCOUNTERS: Certification of Class Sought in "Lindsey" Suit
TITEFLEX CORP: Settles Maryland Homeowners' Class Action
TODAY'S FRESH: Faces "Anderson" Suit Alleging Cal. Law Violation
TRANS UNION: "Maximiliano" Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Report
UNITED STATES: Crumpacker Moves for Rule 23 Class Certification
UPREACH LLC: "Brittmon" Suit Seeks Payment of Overtime Pay
VIP AUTO: Court Certified Class in "Torrezani" Suit
VISA INC: Certification of Merchants Class Sought in B & R Suit
VOYA INSURANCE: Faces "Klevos" Suit in S.D. California
WACKENHUT: Seeks Review of California Class Action Ruling
WELLMARK INC: Iowa High Court Flips Ruling in Chiropractors' Case
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Fowler" Suit in California State Court
WEST FLAGLER: "Herrera" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. District Court
WEST FLORIDA ELECTRIC: Court Dismisses Members' Class Action
WILLIAMS & WILLIAMS: Gorss Suit Seeks Certification of Class
XPO LOGISTICS: Pregent's Motion to Certify Class Denied
* 2016 Securities Class Action Settlement Payouts Hit Record High
* Recent Patronage Fund Class Action Rulings Favor Cooperatives
*********
AAA CAB: Drivers Seek to Revive Misclassification Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that cab drivers who
work for a company that provides taxi service to the airport in
Phoenix, Arizona would press their case on March 17 before a
federal appeals court that they are employees entitled to minimum
wage and not independent contractors as the company claims.
AAA Cab Service Inc drivers' bid to convince a three-judge panel
of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to revive their class
action could provide clues as to how the circuit views employee
misclassification in heavily regulated industries.
AARON BROTHERS: "Basile" Suit Moved to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Heather Basile individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees of Defendants in the
State of California, the Plaintiff, v. Aaron Brothers, Inc.
a Delaware Corporation; Michaels Stores, Inc.; and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-02017-00004172-CU-OE-
CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:17-cv-00485-L-NLS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz.
Aron Brothers operates a chain of framing and art supplies retail
stores in Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Nevada,
Oregon, and Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole R. Roysdon, Esq.
GrahamHollis APC
3555 5th Ave., Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 692 0800
Facsimile: (619) 692 0822
E-mail: nroysdon@grahamhollis.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Gregory W Knopp, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER AND FELD
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 229 1000
Facsimile: (310) 229 1001
E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com
AARON'S INC: Class Notice Mailed in "Korrow" Case
-------------------------------------------------
In the case, Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., a class
notice has been mailed to certain individuals who were customers
of Company-operated stores in New Jersey, Aaron's, Inc. said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.
In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division
on October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated alleging that the Company is liable in
damages to plaintiff and each class member because the Company's
lease agreements issued after March 16, 2006 purportedly violated
certain New Jersey state consumer statutes. Plaintiff's complaint
seeks equitable relief, treble damages under the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, and statutory penalty damages of $100 per
violation of all contracts issued in New Jersey, and also claims
that there are multiple violations per contract. The complaint
also seeks pre-and-post judgment interest and attorneys' fees.
On July 31, 2013, the Court certified a class comprising all
persons who entered into a rent-to-own contract with the Company
in New Jersey from March 16, 2006 through March 31, 2011.
On February 23, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion for partial summary judgment filed August 14,
2015, dismissing plaintiff's claims that a pro-rate feature of the
lease agreements violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, but
denying summary judgment on the claim that Aaron's Service Plus
violated the same act. In December 2016, a class notice was mailed
to certain individuals who were customers of Company-operated
stores in New Jersey from March 16, 2006 to March 31, 2011.
Established in 1955 and incorporated in 1962 as a Georgia
corporation, Aaron's, Inc., is an omnichannel provider of lease-
purchase solutions.
AARON'S INC: Final Briefs Submitted in "Crystal" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in the case, Crystal and
Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., John
Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, final
briefs were submitted on the remand of plaintiffs' motion for
class certification with the District Court.
In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC,
filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court,
Western District of Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the Company
and its independently owned and operated franchisee Aspen Way
Enterprises ("Aspen Way") knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy
in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA")
and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act and sought certification of a
putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen
Way's use of a software program called "PC Rental Agent."
Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims
under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, seeks an
injunction, and names additional independently owned and operated
Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages as well as injunctive relief.
In March 2014, the United States District Court dismissed all
claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises,
LLC, dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and
abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants, and denied
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action, but denied the
Company's motion to dismiss the claims alleging ECPA violations.
In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the denial of class certification on the grounds
stated by the District Court, and remanded the case back to the
District Court for further consideration of that and the other
elements necessary for class certification.
On January 24, 2017, final briefs were submitted on the remand of
plaintiffs' motion for class certification with the District
Court.
Established in 1955 and incorporated in 1962 as a Georgia
corporation, Aaron's, Inc., is an omnichannel provider of lease-
purchase solutions.
AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company's motions to
dismiss and strike certain allegations remain pending in the case,
Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial Corporation,
Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees and
Designerware, LLC.
In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial
Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees
and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles
Superior Court, plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and
its independently owned and operated franchisee, Sultan Financial
Corporation (as well as certain John Doe franchisees), for
unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping, electronic stalking, and
violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law. Each of these claims
arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The
plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages, as well as
certification of a putative California class.
In April 2013, the Company removed this matter to federal court.
In May 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this litigation
pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike certain
allegations in the complaint.
The Court subsequently stayed the case. The Company's motions to
dismiss and strike certain allegations remain pending. In June
2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which was
denied in July 2015.
Established in 1955 and incorporated in 1962 as a Georgia
corporation, Aaron's, Inc., is an omnichannel provider of lease-
purchase solutions.
AARON'S INC: "Price" Suit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------
The case Lomi Price v. Aaron's, Inc. and NW Freedom Corporation
remains stayed, Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.
In Lomi Price v. Aaron's, Inc. and NW Freedom Corporation, filed
on February 27, 2013, in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia
(Case No. 13-EV-016812B), an individual plaintiff asserts claims
against the Company and its independently owned and operated
franchisee, NW Freedom Corporation, for invasion of
privacy/intrusion on seclusion, computer invasion of privacy and
infliction of emotional distress. Each of these claims arises out
of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiff is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages. This case has been
stayed pending resolution of the Byrd litigation.
Established in 1955 and incorporated in 1962 as a Georgia
corporation, Aaron's, Inc., is an omnichannel provider of lease-
purchase solutions.
AARON'S INC: Class Certification Motion Denied in "Peterson"
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's motion for class certification has been denied in the
case, Michael Peterson v. Aaron's, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.
In Michael Peterson v. Aaron's, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., filed on June 19, 2014, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, plaintiffs claim that the
Company and Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and
the privacy of plaintiffs' law firm's clients in violation of the
ECPA and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act. Plaintiffs seek
certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based
these claims on Aspen Way's use of PC Rental Agent software. The
Court has dismissed all claims except a claim for aiding and
abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification which the Court denied on January 25, 2017.
Established in 1955 and incorporated in 1962 as a Georgia
corporation, Aaron's, Inc., is an omnichannel provider of lease-
purchase solutions.
ACADEMY LTD: Faces "Kosulandich" Suit in E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Academy, LTD. The
case is styled as Joe Kosulandich on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Academy, LTD, a Texas
corporation, and Academy Managing Co., LLC, a Texas corporation,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00848 (E.D. Mo., Mar. 8, 2017).
Academy Ltd., doing business as Academy Sports and Outdoors,
operates as a sports, outdoor, and lifestyle retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan E. Fortman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, LLC
250 Saint Catherine Street
Florissant, MO 63031
Telephone: (314) 522 2312
Facsimile: (314) 524 1519
E-mail: jef@fortmanlaw.com
ACTAVIS INC: Pension Funds File Appeal in 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------
United Food & Commercial Work, et al v. Actavis, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 17-80034 (9th Cir, Mar. 9, 2016), is an appeal filed
before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
from a lower court decision in a class action, Case No. 3:14-md-
02521-WHO (N.D. Cal., Mar 7, 2017).[BN]
Plaintiff - Respondents are United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund;
Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance
Trust Fund; Neca-Ibew Welfare Trust Fund; Rochester Drug Co-
Operative, Inc.; Drogueria Betances, Inc.; City of Providence,
Rhode Island; Roofers Local 96 Health And Welfare Fund; Greater
Metropolitan Hotel Employers-Employees Health And Welfare Fund;
Minnesota Cement Masons Health & Welfare Fund; Painters District
Council No.30 Health & Welfare Fund, Philadelphia Federation Of
Teachers Health & Welfare Fund; International Association Of Fire
Fighters Local 22 Health & Welfare Fund; Teamsters Union Local 115
Health & Welfare Fund; Irene Kampanis; Welfare Plan Of The
International Union Of Operation Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B,
137C, 137R; Allied Services Division Welfare Fund; Twin City Iron
Workers Health And Welfare Fund; American Sales Company, LLC;
Government Employees Health Association, Inc., Iron Workers
District Council Of New England Welfare Fund; International Union
Of Operating Engineers Local 49 Health And Welfare Fund;
International Union Of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health And
Welfare Fund; End-Payor Plaintiffs'; Walgreen Co., The Kroger Co.,
Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company LP, albertsons LLC, Rite Aid
Corporation, Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp., Cvs Pharmacy, Inc., The State
of California, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated are represented by:
Brian Oliver O'Mara, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
- and -
Natalie F. Bennett, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLC
35 E. State St.
Media, PA 19063
- and -
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
E-1250 First National Bank Bldg.
332 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
- and -
James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
THE DUGAN LAW FIRM
365 Canal Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
- and -
Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
310 Clifton Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403-3415
- and -
Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
MILLER LAW LLC
115 S. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60603
- and -
Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
601 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
- and -
Jacob Alexander Goldberg, Attorney
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA 19046
- and -
Ralph Kalfayan, Esq.
KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP
550 West C Street
Suite No. 530
San Diego, CA 92101
- and -
Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
100 South Broad Street, Suite 705
Philadelphia, PA 19110-1061
- and -
Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
1818 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
- and -
Joseph Carl Kohn, Esq.
KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
- and -
William H. London, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
2201 Waukegan Road
Bannockburn, IL 60015
- and -
Ryan McEwan, Esq.
Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
San Francisco, CA 94111
- and -
Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
MILLER LAW LLC
115 S. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60603
- and -
David W. Mitchell, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
- and -
J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
88 Pine Street
New York, NY 10005
- and -
Peter Safirstein, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
28 W. 44th Street
New York, NY 10036
- and -
Robert William Sink, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT W. SINK
1417 Crosby Drive
Fort Washington, PA 19034
- and -
Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
310 Clifton Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403-3415
Plaintiff - Respondent, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health &
Welfare Trust Fund, is represented by:
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201 9150
- and -
Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
601 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
Plaintiff - Respondent, Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund is
represented by:
Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
San Francisco, CA 94111
- and -
Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
601 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
- and -
Ryan McEwan, Esq.
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
San Francisco, CA 94111
- and -
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
San Francisco, CA 94111
Plaintiff - Respondent, Steven Roller is represented by:
Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
San Francisco, CA 94111
- and -
Daniel C. Girardm Esq.
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
601 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
- and -
Ralph Kalfayan, Esq.
KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP
550 West C Street, Suite No. 530
- and -
Ryan McEwan, Esq.
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
San Francisco, CA 94111
Defendant - Petitioners, Actavis, Inc., Actavis PLC, and Watson
laboratories, Inc. are represented by:
Karen Hoffman Lent, Esq.
Steven C. Sunshine, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Defendant - Petitioner, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is represented
by:
Daniel B. Asimow, Esq.
Steven Reade, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
Telephone: (415) 471 3142
Defendant - Petitioner, Teikoku Pharma USA and Teikoku Seiyaku
Co., are represented by:
David S. Elkins, Esq.
Joseph A. Meckes, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
620 Hansen Way
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1043
Telephone: (650) 843 3378
AIR CHECK: Foday Moves for Certification of Airport Workers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ALEX FODAY and FRED BERRIOS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AIR
CHECK, INC., MARK S. RATHKE, ROMAN CHMIEL and TERESA KAMINSKA,
Case No. 1:15-cv-10205 (N.D. Ill.), move for entry of an order
certifying a class define as:
All hourly non-exempt employees of Defendants (or their
subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors and/or successors),
employed between November 10, 2012 through to the present,
whose payroll was calculated from supervisor payroll input
sheets and who were not paid for all time worked.
The Defendants have not paid their workers for all of the time
they worked, in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, the Plaintiffs allege.
They contend that they were employed by Air Check at O'Hare
International Airport during the class period.
The Plaintiffs also ask for an order (i) authorizing notice of the
action to be sent to the Class via U.S. Mail, by including notices
with delivery of current employees' paychecks, by posting a notice
on the Chicago Transit Authority Blue Line train, and by posting
at all of Scrub's offices located at O'Hare airport; (ii)
approving the proposed notice of class action certification;
(iii) ordering the Defendants to produce, within seven days of the
Court's Order, the names and last known home addresses, e-mail
address and phone number of all airport workers, who have worked
for the Defendants between November [] through the present and who
recorded their time on manual punch cards or who had their hours
worked processed through Defendants' proprietary software and
reported on the electronic "Punch Summaries"; and (iv) authorizing
notice to be delivered and posted within 5 days of receipt of the
class list, with class members given 90 days thereafter to opt in.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jlZvmgT8
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
221 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1414
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 789-9700
Facsimile: (312) 789-9702
E-mail: jeff@jgbrownlaw.com
- and -
Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOC.
221 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1414
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 545-5056
E-mail: gdunn@gjdlaw.com
ALCON LABORATORIES: Cert. of Classes Sought in Contact Lens MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation entitled In Re:
Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:15-md-
02626-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla.), move for entry of an order certifying a
class of purchasers, who paid artificially high prices for
disposable contact lenses as a result of the Defendants' alleged
anticompetitive agreements.
In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek certification of four
Manufacturer Defendant-specific classes of purchasers of contact
lenses subject to a Unilateral Pricing Policy ("UPP") that were
implemented by each manufacturer. The proposed Class definitions
are:
-- Horizontal Class:
All persons and entities residing in the United States who
made retail purchases of disposable contact lenses
manufactured by Alcon, JJVC, B&L, or CVI from June 1, 2013
to the present (the "Class Period") for their own use and
not for resale, where the prices for such contact lenses
were set pursuant to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy" and the
purchase occurred during the period when the Unilateral
Pricing Policy was in effect. Excluded from the Class are
Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries and
affiliates, any co-conspirators, all governmental entities,
and any judges or justices assigned to hear any aspect of
this action.
The proposed Horizontal Class consists of these subclasses:
* Maryland Subclass:
All persons and entities residing in Maryland who made
retail purchases of disposable contact lenses
manufactured by Alcon, JJVC, B&L, or CV from June 1, 2013
to the date the Court certifies the Class for their own
use and not for resale, where the prices for such contact
lenses were set pursuant to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy"
and the purchase occurred during the period when the
Unilateral Pricing Policy was in effect. Excluded from
the Class are Defendants, their parent companies,
subsidiaries, and affiliates, any co-conspirators, all
governmental entities, and any judges, justices, or
jurors assigned to hear any aspect of this action.
* California Subclass:
All persons and entities residing in California who made
retail purchases of disposable contact lenses
manufactured by Alcon, JJVC, B&L, or CV from June 1, 2013
to the date the Court certifies the Class for their own
use and not for resale, where the prices for such contact
lenses were set pursuant to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy"
and the purchase occurred during the period when the
Unilateral Pricing Policy was in effect. Excluded from
the Class are Defendants, their parent companies,
subsidiaries, and affiliates, any co-conspirators, all
governmental entities, and any judges, justices, or
jurors assigned to hear any aspect of this action.
-- Vertical Classes:
(1) The JJVC Class:
All persons and entities residing in the United States
who made retail purchases of disposable contact lenses
manufactured by JJVC from June 1, 2013 to the date the
Court certifies the Class for their own use and not for
resale, where the prices for such contact lenses were
set pursuant to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy" and the
purchase occurred during the period when the Unilateral
Pricing Policy was in effect. Excluded from the Class
are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries,
and affiliates, any co-conspirators, all governmental
entities, and any judges, justices, or jurors assigned
to hear any aspect of this action.
(2) The Alcon Class:
All persons and entities residing in the United States
who made retail purchases of disposable contact lenses
manufactured by Alcon from June 1, 2013 to the date the
Court certifies the Class for their own use and not for
resale, where the prices for such contact lenses were
set pursuant to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy" and the
purchase occurred during the period when the Unilateral
Pricing Policy was in effect. Excluded from the Class
are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries,
and affiliates, any co-conspirators, all governmental
entities, and any judges, justices, or jurors assigned
to hear any aspect of this action.
(3) The B&L Class:
All persons and entities residing in the United States
who made retail purchases of disposable contact lenses
manufactured by B&L from June 1, 2013 to the date the
Court certifies the Class for their own use and not for
resale, where the prices for such contact lenses were
set pursuant to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy" and the
purchase occurred during the period when the Unilateral
Pricing Policy was in effect. Excluded from the Class
are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries,
and affiliates, any co-conspirators, all governmental
entities, and any judges, justices, or jurors assigned
to hear any aspect of this action.
(4) The CV Class:
All persons and entities residing in the United States
who made retail purchases of disposable contact lenses
manufactured by CV from June 1, 2013 to the date the
Court certifies the Class for their own use and not for
resale, where the prices for such contact lenses were
set pursuant to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy" and the
purchase occurred during the period when the Unilateral
Pricing Policy was in effect. Excluded from the Class
are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries,
and affiliates, any co-conspirators, all governmental
entities, and any judges, justices, or jurors assigned
to hear any aspect of this action.
The Manufacturer Defendants are Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Johnson
& Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Bausch & Lomb Inc., and CooperVision,
Inc.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gLdNw4RU
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
KOPLOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1100
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 384-7270
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: gilbert@kolawyers.com
- and -
John A. DeVault, III, Esq.
Michael E. Lockamy, Esq.
BEDELL, DITTMAR, DEVAULT, PILLANS & COXE, P.A.
The Bedell Building
101 East Adams Street
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: (904) 353-0211
Facsimile: (904) 353-9307
E-mail: jad@bedellfirm.com
mlockamy@bedellfirm.com
- and -
Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
Walter W. Noss, Esq.
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
Jennifer J. Scott, Esq.
Kate Lv, Esq.
SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
707 Broadway, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
wnoss@scott-scott.com
jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
jscott@scott-scott.com
klv@scott-scott.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10174-4099
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
tboardman@scott-scott.com
- and -
Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
bsweeney@hausfeld.com
clebsock@hausfeld.com
- and -
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
1700 K St. NW, Suite 650
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
ngiddings@hausfeld.com
- and -
Hollis Salzman, Esq.
Bernard Persky, Esq.
Benjamin Steinberg, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 980-7400
Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
E-mail: hsalzman@robinskaplan.com
bpersky@robinskaplan.com
bsteinberg@robinskaplan.com
- and -
George W. Sampson, Esq.
Lucinda M. Dunlap, Esq.
SAMPSON DUNLAP LLP
1001 4th Ave., Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98154
Telephone: (206) 414-8340
E-mail: george@sampsondunlap.com
lucinda@sampsondunlap.com
- and -
Dennis Stewart, Esq.
HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 1350
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 338-1133
Facsimile: (619) 338-1139
E-mail: dennis@hulettharper.com
- and -
Steven C. Marks, Esq.
Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
E-mail: smarks@podhurst.com
rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
- and -
Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
Abbye R. Klamann, Esq.
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 946-1008
E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com
aklamann@lchb.com
ALERE INC: Arcare Sues Under Telephone Consumer Protection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned ARCARE, INC. v. ALERE, INC.; ALEREHOME
MONITORING, INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-00147-KGB (Ark. Circ., White
County, March 13, 2017), alleges on behalf of Plaintiff and others
similarly situated, that Defendants have a policy and practice of
faxing advertisements without providing an adequate opt-out notice
as required by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Defendant Alere, Inc. is a company that is a global diagnostic
device and service provider.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 West 7th Street
Little Rock, AK 72201
Phone: (501) 312-8500
Fax: (501) 312-8505
E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
ALLCO: Court Takes Different Approach in Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that as
"digital disruption" changes the way we consume information,
especially news, a top lawyer has called for new and novel ways to
contact shareholders and consumer of products who might have a
windfall from a class action.
Barrister Michael Lee, SC, who's run a host of major class actions
on behalf of shareholders and consumers, said the traditional way
of notifying investors about a class action settlement by putting
an advertisement in the newspaper and a notice up on a law firm's
website would not reach as many people as previously.
"[The class action regime] has to be open to new ways in which
that should be done -- whether that involves the use of the
shareholder register, whether that involves social media, whether
that includes new novel ways of communicating with a broad number
of people," Mr Lee said.
Mr Lee said these approaches should be used in conjunction with
press advertising.
He said that in a recent case, the class action brought against
collapsed financial services giant Allco, the court took the rare
step in allowing the class action lawyers to obtain a copy of the
shareholder registry and notify customers that way.
In the Allco case a $30 million settlement had been reached to pay
shareholders who signed up to the class action.
A further $10 million was set aside to settle claims of any
unregistered members, returnable to Allco (which is in
liquidation) if no one took up the offer.
The reason the court took this approach is because Australia's
current class action system is founded on an "opt out" regime
rather than an "opt in" regime, meaning class action lawyers have
to find a way of locating affected people and asking whether they
want to opt in or out.
Mr Lee said the use of the shareholder register provided access to
justice for Allco shareholders who might not have read the
newspaper on a particular day.
"What happened was that the notices went out using the register on
December 22 and by January 6 there were sufficient responses to
come in that all the money was exhausted," Mr Lee said.
"I do think there is a real public policy issue about having
unfettered access to company registers for litigation funders of
all persuasions to send out promotional information -- I don't
think that's why registers exist," Mr Lee said.
"But I do think it's a little different when the court is giving
opt-out notices and giving people notification of settlement and
things like that," he added.
ALLERGAN PLC: Asacol(R) Litigation Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that Warner Chilcott continues to defend class action lawsuits by
indirect and direct purchasers of Asacol(R).
Two class action complaints were filed on June 22, 2015, and three
more on September 21, 2015, in federal court in Massachusetts on
behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers. In each
complaint plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices for
Warner Chilcott's Asacol(R) HD and Delzicol(R) products as a
result of Warner Chilcott's alleged actions preventing or delaying
generic competition in the market for Warner Chilcott's older
Asacol(R) product in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws
and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief,
treble damages and/or attorneys' fees.
Defendants moved to dismiss the indirect purchasers' complaint. A
hearing was held on the motion to dismiss on May 11, 2016. On
July 20, 2016, the court issued a decision granting the motion in
part, dismissing the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims based
on purported reverse payments and dismissing several of indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on state laws.
On August 15, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint. The Company filed an answer to the
second amended complaint on October 4, 2016.
Complaints were also filed on behalf of a putative class of direct
purchasers of Asacol(R) in federal court in New York on April 26,
2016, and on June 29, 2016, in each case making similar
allegations to the complaints filed by the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs. Those matters have been consolidated with the
indirect purchaser cases in the federal court in Massachusetts.
On October 11, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
direct purchasers' consolidated complaint and oral argument on the
motion was held on December 16, 2016.
Allergan plc (formerly known as Actavis plc) was incorporated in
Ireland on May 16, 2013 as a private limited company and re-
registered effective September 20, 2013 as a public limited
company. It was established for the purpose of facilitating the
business combination between Allergan Finance, LLC (formerly known
as Actavis, Inc.) and Warner Chilcott plc. On July 1, 2014, the
Company acquired Forest Laboratories, Inc. Forest was a fully
integrated, specialty pharmaceutical company largely focused on
the United States market.
ALLERGAN PLC: Class Certification Bid Underway in Botox Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for class certification in the Botox(R) litigation
remains pending, Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in
their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.
A class action complaint was filed in federal court in California
on February 24, 2015, and amended May 29, 2015, alleging unlawful
market allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. Sec.1, agreement in restraint of trade in violation of 15
U.S.C. Sec.1 of the Sherman Act, unlawful maintenance of monopoly
market power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. Sec.2 of the Sherman Act, violations of California's
Cartwright Act, Section 16700 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof.
Code, and violations of California's unfair competition law,
Section 17200 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code. In the
complaint, plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of treble
damages.
On July 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. On October 14, 2016, the Company filed an
opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Oral
argument on the class certification motion was heard on January
13, 2017.
Allergan plc (formerly known as Actavis plc) was incorporated in
Ireland on May 16, 2013 as a private limited company and re-
registered effective September 20, 2013 as a public limited
company. It was established for the purpose of facilitating the
business combination between Allergan Finance, LLC (formerly known
as Actavis, Inc.) and Warner Chilcott plc. On July 1, 2014, the
Company acquired Forest Laboratories, Inc. Forest was a fully
integrated, specialty pharmaceutical company largely focused on
the United States market.
ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss in Loestrin(R) 24 Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
In the Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation, Defendants' omnibus motion to
dismiss the claims of direct purchaser class plaintiffs, end-payor
class plaintiffs and individual direct purchaser plaintiffs
remains pending, Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in
their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.
On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court against Warner Chilcott and certain
affiliates alleging that Warner Chilcott's 2009 patent lawsuit
settlements with Watson Laboratories and Lupin related to
Loestrin(R) 24 Fe were unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on
behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that
Watson and Lupin improperly delayed launching generic versions of
Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange for substantial payments from Warner
Chilcott in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer
protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages.
Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs
seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors.
In addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed
on behalf of a class of direct payors and by direct purchasers in
their individual capacities. After a hearing on September 26,
2013, the JPML issued an order transferring all related
Loestrin(R) 24 cases to the federal court for the District of
Rhode Island.
On September 4, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed the district
court's decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and oral
argument was held on December 7, 2015.
On February 22, 2016 the First Circuit issued its decision
vacating the decision of, and remanding the matter to, the
district court.
On June 11, 2016, defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss
the claims of the direct purchaser class plaintiffs, end-payor
class plaintiffs and individual direct purchaser plaintiffs. Oral
argument on the motion to dismiss was held on January 13, 2017.
Allergan plc (formerly known as Actavis plc) was incorporated in
Ireland on May 16, 2013 as a private limited company and re-
registered effective September 20, 2013 as a public limited
company. It was established for the purpose of facilitating the
business combination between Allergan Finance, LLC (formerly known
as Actavis, Inc.) and Warner Chilcott plc. On July 1, 2014, the
Company acquired Forest Laboratories, Inc. Forest was a fully
integrated, specialty pharmaceutical company largely focused on
the United States market.
ALLERGAN PLC: Namenda(R) Class Action Lawsuits Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that the Company continues to defend class action lawsuits by
purchasers of Namenda(R).
On September 15, 2014, the State of New York, through the Office
of the Attorney General of the State of New York, filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York alleging that Forest was acting to prevent or delay
generic competition to Forest's immediate-release product
Namenda(R) in violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and
committed other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial
plans for Namenda(R) XR.
On December 11, 2014, the district court issued a ruling granting
the state's preliminary injunction motion and issued an injunction
on December 15, 2014 which the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed on May 22, 2015. Forest and the New York Attorney
General reached a settlement on November 24, 2015.
On May 29, 2015, a putative class action was filed on behalf of a
class of direct purchasers and on June 8, 2015 a similar putative
class action was filed on behalf of a class of indirect
purchasers.
Since that time, additional complaints have been filed on behalf
of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers. The class
action complaints make claims similar to those asserted by the New
York Attorney General and also include claims that Namenda(R)
patent litigation settlements between Forest and generic companies
also violated the antitrust laws. On December 22, 2015, Forest and
its co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the pending complaints.
On September 13, 2016, the court issued a decision denying the
Company's motion to dismiss. On September 27, 2016 the Company
filed an answer to the amended complaint.
Allergan plc (formerly known as Actavis plc) was incorporated in
Ireland on May 16, 2013 as a private limited company and re-
registered effective September 20, 2013 as a public limited
company. It was established for the purpose of facilitating the
business combination between Allergan Finance, LLC (formerly known
as Actavis, Inc.) and Warner Chilcott plc. On July 1, 2014, the
Company acquired Forest Laboratories, Inc. Forest was a fully
integrated, specialty pharmaceutical company largely focused on
the United States market.
ALLERGAN PLC: Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Litigation Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) litigation against Allergan plc remains
pending, Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.
On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a
complaint in the federal district court in Delaware against Senju
Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. ("Senju"), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd. ("Kyorin"), and Allergan, Inc. alleging monopolization in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, conspiracy to
monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in the market for
gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which includes Allergan
Inc.'s ZYMAR(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% and
ZYMAXID(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% products. In the
complaint, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of treble damages
and disgorgement of profits.Following the court's denial of
Allergan Inc.'s motions to dismiss, Allergan Inc. filed an answer
to Apotex's complaint on June 1, 2015.
On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was
filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same
defendants as in the Apotex case. The complaint alleges that
defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in
the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions
of ZYMAR(R) and ZYMAXID(R)).
On September 18, 2014, Allergan Inc. filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and joined in co-defendants'
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On August 19,
2015, the court granted Allergan Inc.'s motion to dismiss. On
September 18, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit
oral argument was held on June 13, 2016. On September 7, 2016,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the
District Court's granting of Allergan Inc.'s motion to dismiss and
remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. The Third
Circuit denied the Company's petition for a rehearing on October
4, 2016.
Allergan plc (formerly known as Actavis plc) was incorporated in
Ireland on May 16, 2013 as a private limited company and re-
registered effective September 20, 2013 as a public limited
company. It was established for the purpose of facilitating the
business combination between Allergan Finance, LLC (formerly known
as Actavis, Inc.) and Warner Chilcott plc. On July 1, 2014, the
Company acquired Forest Laboratories, Inc. Forest was a fully
integrated, specialty pharmaceutical company largely focused on
the United States market.
ALLERGAN PLC: Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Suits v. Forest Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Forest and certain of its affiliates continue to defend class
action lawsuits over Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) products, Allergan plc
and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.
Forest and certain of its affiliates have been named as defendants
in multiple federal court actions relating to the promotion of
Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) all of which have been consolidated in
the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL proceeding in the federal district
court in Massachusetts.
On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in
Minnesota which sought to certify a nationwide class of third-
party payor entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for
pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act,
alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and
paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of
Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).
Forest moved to dismiss the complaint and on December 12, 2014,
and the court thereafter issued a ruling dismissing plaintiff's
claims under Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but
denying the remaining portions of the motion.
A motion for class certification was filed in February, 2016, and
denied on June 2, 2016. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a 23(f)
petition requesting leave to appeal the denial of class
certification which the First Circuit denied on December 7, 2016.
On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district
court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of
consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts consumers
that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The
complaint asserts claims under the federal RICO statute, alleging
that Forest engaged in off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal
kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and
Lexapro(R).
Forest's moved to dismiss the complaint on December 19, 2014. On
June 16, 2015, the court issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss,
granting it in part and denying it in part. Plaintiffs thereafter
filed an amended complaint. Forest moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On June 9, 2016, the court denied Forest's motion.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Allergan plc (formerly known as Actavis plc) was incorporated in
Ireland on May 16, 2013 as a private limited company and re-
registered effective September 20, 2013 as a public limited
company. It was established for the purpose of facilitating the
business combination between Allergan Finance, LLC (formerly known
as Actavis, Inc.) and Warner Chilcott plc. On July 1, 2014, the
Company acquired Forest Laboratories, Inc. Forest was a fully
integrated, specialty pharmaceutical company largely focused on
the United States market.
ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in TRT Suit in Early Stages
---------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the testosterone replacement therapy class action is
in the early stages, Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said
in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.
On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in
federal court in Illinois. The suit alleges that the Company and
other named pharmaceutical defendants violated various laws
including the federal RICO statute and state consumer protection
laws in connection with the sale and marketing of certain
testosterone replacement therapy pharmaceutical products ("TRT
Products"), including the Company's Androderm(R) product. This
matter was filed in the TRT Products Liability MDL notwithstanding
that it is not a product liability matter. Plaintiff alleges that
it reimbursed third parties for dispensing TRT Products to
beneficiaries of its insurance policies. Plaintiff seeks to obtain
certain equitable relief, including injunctive relief and an order
requiring restitution and/or disgorgement, and to recover damages
and multiple damages in an unspecified amount.
Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint, after
which plaintiff amended its complaint. Defendants jointly filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was granted in part
and denied in part on February 3, 2016.
The Court dismissed plaintiff's substantive RICO claims against
the Company for mail and wire fraud for failure to plead with
particularity under Rule 9(b) but granted plaintiffs leave to
replead. The court also dismissed plaintiff's state law statutory
claims and common law claims for fraud and unjust enrichment. The
Court declined to dismiss plaintiff's conspiracy claims pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d) and its claims for negligent
misrepresentation. Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on
April 7, 2016.
Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint on May 5, 2016. On August 2, 2016, the court dismissed
all claims in the Third Amended Complaint against the Company
except plaintiffs' RICO conspiracy claim.
On August 29, 2016, the Company filed a Motion for Reconsideration
or, in the Alternative, Motion to Certify for Interlocutory
Appeal, which the court denied on the September 8, 2016.
Discovery is in the early stages.
Allergan plc (formerly known as Actavis plc) was incorporated in
Ireland on May 16, 2013 as a private limited company and re-
registered effective September 20, 2013 as a public limited
company. It was established for the purpose of facilitating the
business combination between Allergan Finance, LLC (formerly known
as Actavis, Inc.) and Warner Chilcott plc. On July 1, 2014, the
Company acquired Forest Laboratories, Inc. Forest was a fully
integrated, specialty pharmaceutical company largely focused on
the United States market.
ALLERGAN PLC: Forest Still Faces Suit by Sales Representatives
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that Forest continues to defend a class action lawsuit by certain
former company sales representatives and specialty sales
representatives.
In July 2012, Forest was named as defendants in an action brought
by certain former company sales representatives and specialty
sales representatives in the federal district court in New York.
The action is a putative class and collective action, and alleges
class claims under Title VII for gender discrimination with
respect to pay and promotions, as well as discrimination on the
basis of pregnancy, and a collective action claim under the Equal
Pay Act.
The proposed Title VII gender class includes all current and
former female sales representatives employed by the Company
throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment, and the
proposed Title VII pregnancy sub-class includes all current and
former female sales representatives who have been, are, or will
become pregnant while employed by the Company throughout the U.S.
from 2008 to the date of judgment. The proposed Equal Pay Act
collective action class includes current, former, and future
female sales representatives who were not compensated equally to
similarly-situated male employees during the applicable liability
period.
The Second Amended Complaint also includes non-class claims on
behalf of certain of the named Plaintiffs for sexual harassment
and retaliation under Title VII, and for violations of the Family
and Medical Leave Act.
On August 14, 2014, the court issued a decision on the Company's
motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part,
striking the plaintiffs' proposed class definition and instead
limiting the proposed class to a smaller set of potential class
members and dismissing certain of the individual plaintiffs'
claims.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of an
Equal Pay Act collective action on May 22, 2015 which the Company
has opposed. On September 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs
motion to conditionally certify a collective action.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Allergan plc (formerly known as Actavis plc) was incorporated in
Ireland on May 16, 2013 as a private limited company and re-
registered effective September 20, 2013 as a public limited
company. It was established for the purpose of facilitating the
business combination between Allergan Finance, LLC (formerly known
as Actavis, Inc.) and Warner Chilcott plc. On July 1, 2014, the
Company acquired Forest Laboratories, Inc. Forest was a fully
integrated, specialty pharmaceutical company largely focused on
the United States market.
ALLERGAN PLC: Actonel(R) Cases in Initial Stages of Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that Warner Chilcott is in the initial stages of discovery in 164
Actonel(R) product liability cases.
Warner Chilcott is a defendant in approximately 164 cases and a
potential defendant with respect to approximately 373 unfiled
claims involving a total of approximately 446 plaintiffs and
potential plaintiffs relating to Warner Chilcott's bisphosphonate
prescription drug Actonel(R). The claimants allege, among other
things, that Actonel(R) caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of the
jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but serious condition that involves severe
loss or destruction of the jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of
the femur. All of the cases have been filed in either federal or
state courts in the United States.
Warner Chilcott is partially indemnified by the Procter & Gamble
Company ("P&G") for ONJ claims that were pending at the time
Warner Chilcott acquired P&G's global pharmaceutical business in
October 2009. In May and September 2013, Warner Chilcott entered
into two settlement agreements that resolved a majority of the
then-existing ONJ-related claims.
Allergan plc (formerly known as Actavis plc) was incorporated in
Ireland on May 16, 2013 as a private limited company and re-
registered effective September 20, 2013 as a public limited
company. It was established for the purpose of facilitating the
business combination between Allergan Finance, LLC (formerly known
as Actavis, Inc.) and Warner Chilcott plc. On July 1, 2014, the
Company acquired Forest Laboratories, Inc. Forest was a fully
integrated, specialty pharmaceutical company largely focused on
the United States market.
ALLERGAN PLC: 4 Actonel(R) Cases Pending in Canada
--------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that Warner Chilcott is aware of four purported product liability
class actions that were brought against Warner Chilcott in
provincial courts in Canada alleging, among other things, that
Actonel(R) caused the plaintiffs and the proposed class members
who ingested Actonel(R) to suffer atypical fractures or other side
effects. It is expected that these plaintiffs will seek class
certification. Plaintiffs have typically asked for unspecified
monetary and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. Warner
Chilcott is indemnified by Sanofi for certain Actonel claims
pursuant to a collaboration agreement relating to the two parties'
co-promotion of the product in the United States and other
countries.
Allergan plc (formerly known as Actavis plc) was incorporated in
Ireland on May 16, 2013 as a private limited company and re-
registered effective September 20, 2013 as a public limited
company. It was established for the purpose of facilitating the
business combination between Allergan Finance, LLC (formerly known
as Actavis, Inc.) and Warner Chilcott plc. On July 1, 2014, the
Company acquired Forest Laboratories, Inc. Forest was a fully
integrated, specialty pharmaceutical company largely focused on
the United States market.
ALLERGAN PLC: 1,733 Benicar(R) Cases Filed v. Forest
----------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that Forest is named in approximately 1,733 actions involving
allegations that Benicar(R), a treatment for hypertension that
Forest co-promoted with Daiichi Sankyo between 2002 and 2008,
caused certain gastrointestinal injuries. Under Forest's Co-
Promotion Agreement, Daiichi Sankyo is defending the Company in
these lawsuits.
Allergan plc (formerly known as Actavis plc) was incorporated in
Ireland on May 16, 2013 as a private limited company and re-
registered effective September 20, 2013 as a public limited
company. It was established for the purpose of facilitating the
business combination between Allergan Finance, LLC (formerly known
as Actavis, Inc.) and Warner Chilcott plc. On July 1, 2014, the
Company acquired Forest Laboratories, Inc. Forest was a fully
integrated, specialty pharmaceutical company largely focused on
the United States market.
ALLERGAN PLC: 179 Birth Defect Suits Filed v. Forest
----------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that Forest is a defendant in approximately 179 actions alleging
that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused various birth defects. Several
of the cases involve multiple minor-plaintiffs. The majority of
these actions have been consolidated in state court in Missouri.
The company recently reached an agreement in principle with
plaintiffs to settle five of the pending cases. There are birth
defect cases pending in other jurisdictions, none of which are set
for trial.
Allergan plc (formerly known as Actavis plc) was incorporated in
Ireland on May 16, 2013 as a private limited company and re-
registered effective September 20, 2013 as a public limited
company. It was established for the purpose of facilitating the
business combination between Allergan Finance, LLC (formerly known
as Actavis, Inc.) and Warner Chilcott plc. On July 1, 2014, the
Company acquired Forest Laboratories, Inc. Forest was a fully
integrated, specialty pharmaceutical company largely focused on
the United States market.
ALLERGAN PLC: Testosterone Product Liability Case in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that discovery is ongoing the testosterone product liability
litigation.
Beginning in 2014, a number of product liability suits were filed
against Actavis, Inc., now known as Allergan Finance, LLC, and one
or more of its former subsidiaries as well as other manufacturers
and distributors of testosterone products, for personal injuries
including but not limited to cardiovascular events allegedly
arising out of the use of Androderm(R) and AndroGel(R), a product
that a subsidiary of the Company had co-promoted for another
pharmaceutical company defendant. There are approximately 562
currently pending actions which have been consolidated in an MDL
in federal court in Illinois.
The defendants have responded to the plaintiffs' master complaint
in the MDL. These cases are in the initial stages and discovery is
ongoing. The Company anticipates that additional suits will be
filed.
Allergan plc (formerly known as Actavis plc) was incorporated in
Ireland on May 16, 2013 as a private limited company and re-
registered effective September 20, 2013 as a public limited
company. It was established for the purpose of facilitating the
business combination between Allergan Finance, LLC (formerly known
as Actavis, Inc.) and Warner Chilcott plc. On July 1, 2014, the
Company acquired Forest Laboratories, Inc. Forest was a fully
integrated, specialty pharmaceutical company largely focused on
the United States market.
ALLERGAN PLC: Generic Drug Pricing Lawsuits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that the generic drug pricing securities class action lawsuits
have been consolidated in the federal district court in New
Jersey.
On November 4, 2016 a class action was filed by a putative class
of Allergan shareholders in federal court in California against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers
alleging that the Company and certain of its current and former
officers made materially false and misleading statements. The
complaint alleges generally that between February 2014 and
November 2016, Allergan and certain of its officers made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
internal controls over its financial reporting and failed to
disclose that its Actavis generics unit had engaged in illegal,
anticompetitive price-fixing with its generic industry peers. The
complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages. Additional
complaints have been filed in other federal district courts.
On February 2, 2017, the actions were consolidated in the federal
district court in New Jersey.
On February 14, 2017, a separate complaint was filed in the
federal district court in California that is premised on the same
alleged underlying conduct that is at issue in the securities
litigation but that asserts claims under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA). The ERISA complaint asserts
claims on behalf of a putative class of individuals who
participated in the Company's retirement plans and seeks an
unspecified amount of damages and other injunctive relief.
Allergan plc (formerly known as Actavis plc) was incorporated in
Ireland on May 16, 2013 as a private limited company and re-
registered effective September 20, 2013 as a public limited
company. It was established for the purpose of facilitating the
business combination between Allergan Finance, LLC (formerly known
as Actavis, Inc.) and Warner Chilcott plc. On July 1, 2014, the
Company acquired Forest Laboratories, Inc. Forest was a fully
integrated, specialty pharmaceutical company largely focused on
the United States market.
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ENEIDA JOHNSON, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLTRAN
FINANCIAL, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00342 (E.D. Wisc.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class,
appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and
further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and grant the parties relief from the
local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that
Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this
motion.
To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).
As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jFYsdC1o
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Denise L. Morris, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482 8000
Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
dmorris@ademilaw.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Court Rules on Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Phyllis Grodzitsky, et al. v. American Honda
Motor Co. Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-01142-SVW-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Stephen V. Wilson entered an order:
1. denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment;
2. granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend; and
3. denying as moot ex parte application to shorten time for
hearing and the motion to strike Plaintiff's renewed motion
for class certification.
The Court said, "To sum up, the Court will deny the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice on the grounds that
it is premature. The Court may consider such a motion after the
class certification issue is resolved and proper discovery has
taken place. The Court will grant the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend,
as it is no longer futile and the Court denied the previous motion
for class certification without prejudice. The Court will consider
the Plaintiff's most recent renewed motion for class certification
once it is fully briefed and will evaluate whether the Plaintiffs
have sufficiently met the requirements to certify their new
proposed class. Finally, the case is restored to the active
calendar."
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ext44PgN
AMERICAN PRO: April 3 Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in "Golden" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LORI GOLDEN, on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN PRO ENERGY,
the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00891-MWF-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on April 3, 2017, before the Hon.
Michael W. Fitzgerald of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, for an Order certifying
Plaintiff's proposed class.
The Plaintiff contends that it has identified a Class consisting
of more than 40 members. It contends that the commonality
requirement under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied
because whether the Class may recover turns on questions of law
and fact common to the Class, including whether Defendant can be
held liable under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA),
whether Defendant's calls to Plaintiff and the Class were made
using an automatic telephone dialing system, whether those calls
were made to cellular telephones, whether Plaintiff and the Class
consented to the calls, and whether Plaintiff's claims are unique.
The Defendant had employed a practice generally applicable to the
Class that allowed for phone calls to be placed to cellphone
numbers using autodialing equipment, and also by Defendant failing
to honor do not call requests, failing to scrub for cell phone
numbers, failing to comply with the Federal Do Not Call Registry,
and Defendant by continuing to place calls to persons without
prior express written consent, as required by the law.
A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iBzgx11X
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Alexis Wood, Esq.
Kas Gallucci, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696 9006
Facsimile: (619) 564 6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
- and -
Greg Weston, Esq.
David Elliot, Esq.
THE WESTON FIRM
1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone:(619) 798-2006
E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com
david@westonfirm.com
ATT CORP: Hearing on Class Certification Continued in "Gadelhak"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Edmond E. Chang entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
Ali Gadelhak, the Plaintiff, v. ATT Corp., the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-01559 (N.D. Ill.), continuing Plaintiff's motion for
certification because the motion recognizes that it is too early
to decide on the motion and is only filed to stave off potential
mootness.
According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 10, 2017,
the motion hearing of March 14, 2017 is vacated.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AAX8LbjX
AUDIBLE: Faces Bait-and-Switch, False Advertising Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Maynard, writing for Consumer Affairs, reports that
consumers who enjoy reading, but don't have time to actually sit
down and dive into a book, are increasingly turning to audiobooks.
However, one of the top sellers of this kind of media is now
facing a class action over alleged false advertising practices and
"bait-and-switch tactics."
Audible, an audiobook seller owned by Amazon.com, is being sued by
one of its former subscribers after his earned audiobook credits
supposedly expired. Plaintiff Grant McKee says he paid a monthly
fee to earn those credits and "believed defendants'
representations that 'one credit equals one audiobook,' that
audiobook credits would 'never expire,' and that a member can
cancel any time with 'no strings attached,'" the lawsuit states.
However, the complaint goes on to say that the exact opposite was
true. "Like defendants' other misrepresentations concealing key
facts about Audible's plans, Audible uses the label of 'credit' to
conceal what is otherwise an illegal gift card scheme,"
Mr. McKee says in his complaint.
Expired credits
Mr. McKee signed up for an Audible trial membership back in June,
2016 and eventually converted to a $14.95 "Gold Monthly"
membership that allowed him to earn a credit each month to buy a
free audiobook -- basically as a sort of prepaid gift certificate
or gift card. In December, he canceled his membership but still
had two unredeemed credits that he intended to use. However, he
found out after canceling the membership that it wasn't possible.
"Upon canceling his membership plan, he learned that -- contrary
to Audible's and Amazon's representations -- the credits he had
purchased but not yet redeemed had automatically and immediately
expired and that, due to his cancellation, he had forfeited the
money he paid for the credits without receiving audiobooks," the
lawsuit states.
Mr. McKee was flummoxed by the turn of events and pointed to
company promises that credits never expired and that there were
"no strings attached" when it came canceling an account. But
after reading the fine print of the company's agreement, he
discovered a different narrative.
The agreement explains that credits do, in fact, expire in some
circumstances. For example, if customers reach their rollover
limit for their membership plan, then older credits are discarded
and new ones take their place. In Mr. McKee's case, it was the
cancellation of his membership that allegedly triggered the credit
purge.
"Based on Audible's cancellation policy, all prepaid credits are
capable of expiring or being forfeited immediately after being
purchased. For example, the credits that expired or were
forfeited when Mr. Mckee canceled his plan had been purchased
approximately one week and six weeks before," the suit states.
Charging without consent
The suit also alleges that Audible and Amazon cheat customers in
the way that they charge credit cards. It states that if a
member's credit card is declined for any reason, then the
companies charge the monthly membership fee, without consent, to
any credit card or payment method linked to member's Amazon
account.
"According to Audible and Amazon (and possibly many other Amazon
subsidiaries and affiliates), any credit cards stored on an Amazon
account are fair game," the complaint reads. "This results in a
modern form of conversion that is unlawful nationwide and that
affects unsuspecting consumers like plaintiff without notice."
Mr. McKee's attorney, Jamin Soderstrom, has not yet stated how
much the class action could claim in damages; however, he has
stated that meeting the $5 million threshold for a federal class
action is well within the realm of possibility. "It's a very
reasonable estimate to say it exceeds $5 million and probably
greatly exceeds," he said.
What to do
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Faces "Hegeman" Suit Under Securities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Hegeman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. BABCOCK & WILCOX ENTERPRISES, INC., E.
JAMES FERLAND, and JENNY L. APKER, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00125 (W.D.N.C., March 13, 2017), alleges that Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts in violation of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act. Specifically, Defendants allegedly made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) the
issues with the Company's European renewable contract, including
the issues it caused with productivity and schedule issues in
other Renewable segment projects; (2) the effect these issues
would have on the Company's financials and the Company's ability
to meet its guidance; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's financial and business prospects were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
Babcock & Wilcox, Ent., Inc. specializes in advanced energy and
environmental technologies and services for the power and
industrial markets, with operations, subsidiaries and joint
ventures worldwide.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ranchor Harris, III, Esq.
7725 Harps Mill Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: (336) 500-1835
E-mail: Ranchorharris@gmail.com
- and -
Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
Alexander A. Krot III, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 524-4294
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Email:nporritt@zlk.com
Email:akrot@zlk.com
BASIC ENTERPRISES: "Alonzo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Alonzo, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
plaintiffs similarly situated v. Basic Enterprises Inc. and Jim
Wilbrandt, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02029 (N.D. Ill., March
15, 2017), seeks payment of minimum wages and overtime for work
performed in excess of 40 hours pursuant to the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law and Fair Labor Standard Act.
According to the complaint, Defendants willfully, knowingly and/or
recklessly failed to pay overtime compensation due to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff was an hourly rate employee of Basic Enterprises.
Defendant Basic Enterprises Inc. is an Illinois corporation owning
and operating transportation facilities located at 2567 Greenleaf
Avenue, Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Fish, Esq.
Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
The Fish Law Firm
200 E 5th Ave Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
khilton@fishlawfirm.com
kunze@fishlawfirm.com
BAYADA HOME: "Ivanovs" Suit Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sonya Ivanovs and Katie Hoffman, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated employees v. Bayada
Home Health Care, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01742-NLH-AMD
(N.J. Dist., March 15, 2017), seeks payment of overtime for work
performed in excess of 40 hours pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.
Plaintiffs were employed as Client Service Managers (CSM) by
Defendant. Defendant unlawfully classifies all of its CSMs
nationwide as exempt from the minimum wage and overtime
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, says the complaint.
Bayada Home Health Care, Inc.'s core business involves the
provision of home health care services in at least 22 states,
including Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Palitz, Esq.
Shavitz Law Group, P.A.
830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (800) 616-4000
Fax: (561) 447-8831
- and -
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
Shavitz Law Group, P.A.
1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Tel: (561) 447-8888
Fax: (561) 447-8831
Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
BCA FINANCIAL: Certification of "Beneli" Consumer Class Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DAVID BENELI, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BCA FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-
cv-02737-FLW-LHG (D.N.J.), the Parties will jointly move the Court
for an Order certifying the case to proceed as a class action, and
granting preliminary approval of the settlement, on behalf of the
following class:
"all New Jersey consumers who were sent a collection letter
from BCA, during the time period of May 13, 2015 to May 13,
2016, in an envelope with a glassine window, in which the
consumer's reference number assigned by BCA was visible
through the glassine window of the enclosing envelope".
The Plaintiff filed the class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, (FDCPA), alleging that BCA violated
the FDCPA by sending consumers written collection communications
which improperly displayed the consumer's personal identifying
information through the glassine window of the enclosing envelope.
A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iIiFFMtm
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695 3282
Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
E-Mail: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Richard J. Perr, Esq.
Monica M. Littman, Esq.
FINEMAN, KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, P.C.
Ten Penn Center
1801 Market Street; Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 893 8749
Facsimile: (215) 893 8719
E-mail: rperr@finemanlawfirm.com
mlittman@finemanlawfirm.com
BOXER PROPERTY: Shelby Moves to Certify Class of Leasing Agents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sherry Shelby and opt-in plaintiffs Rodney Hale, Crystal
Cook, Lauren Shepperd, and Travis John Lemley move for conditional
certification and class notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act
in the lawsuit styled SHERRY SHELBY, Individually and on Behalf
All Others Similarly Situated v. BOXER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, Case No. 4:16-cv-01549 (S.D. Tex.).
On June 1, 2016, Sherry Shelby filed the case against the
Defendant under the FLSA on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated "onsite leasing agents."
The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated were all employed by
Boxer Property as onsite leasing agents working from a Boxer
Property leasing office within one of the Defendant's to-be-leased
commercial properties. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant
promulgated compensation policies and practices that uniformly
violate the wage and hour rights of its onsite leasing agents by
requiring them to work without legal wages.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Bwy5SAXg
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rhonda H. Wills, Esq.
WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC
1776 Yorktown, Suite 570
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 528-4455
Facsimile: (713) 528-2047
E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com
BANK OF AMERICA: "Melendez" Suit Seeks OT, Asserts Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yizrel Melendez, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
0:17-cv-60542, (S.D. Fla., March 16, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated
damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Equal Pay Act.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant from February 1, 2006, through
July 18, 20l6, as an Assistant Manager.
Melendez alleges that the Defendant has consistently hired men at
considerably higher rates than women, resulting in a substantial
disparity between the male and female employees in each category.
She also claims unpaid overtime pay from working in excess of 40
hours per workweek.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
Email: agp@agppattorneys.com
apetisco@agppattorneys.com
rregueiro@agppattorneys.com
pn@agppattorneys.com
BRISTOL-MYERS: "Spengler" Lawsuit Joins MDL 2418
------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SPENGLER, Plaintiff, v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC, SANOFI US SERVICES INC., and SANOFI-
SYNTHELABO, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01426 (D.N.J.,
March 1, 2017), is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as
a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' alleged negligent
and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of Plavix. Plaintiff was
diagnosed with a condition called Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic
Purpura after ingesting Plavix.
The case is part of IN RE: PLAVIX PRODUCTS MDL NO. 3:13-CV-02418-
FLW-TJB LIABILITY AND MARKETING LITIGATION.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a pharmaceutical manufacturing and
marketing company that partners with Sanofi-Aventis (now Sanofi-
Aventis U.S. LLC and Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Inc.) to manufacture and
market Plavix in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
Jennifer L. Crose, Esq.
BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
425 West Airline Highway
New Orleans, LA 70125
Phone: (985) 536-1186
Fax: (985) 536-6445
CALIFORNIA: Brislane Seeks Certification of Inmates Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JONATHAN BRISLANE, etc., the Plaintiff, v.
BILL BROWN, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06002-JFW-E
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff renewed his class certification motion,
and again moved the court to certify the class of:
"persons who, as inmates, both pre-trial detainees and
convicted persons, were forced to sleep on the floors of
the Santa Barbara County jails without state-rated bunks".
A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=n0nXvYzO
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marion R. Yagman, Esq.
Joseph Reichmann, Esq.
YAGMAN & REICHMANN
475 Washington Boulevard
Venice Beach, CA 90292-5287
Telephone: (310) 452 3200
CALIFORNIA, USA: Court Refuses to Certify "Wade" as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify the lawsuit titled CHANCELLOR WADE, et al. v. CA DEPT. OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Case No. 4:17-cv-00042-PJH (N.D.
Cal.), as a class action.
The Motion is denied because pro se prisoner plaintiffs are not
adequate class representatives able to fairly represent and
adequately protect the interests of a class, Judge Hamilton
opines.
The Plaintiffs, who are two state prisoners, have filed a joint
pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have interfered with their
ability to practice their religion. They also seek to hold the
Defendants liable pursuant to municipal liability.
The Plaintiffs seek to pursue the case together; however, only one
has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, yet both would
need to be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, according
to the order. Hence, the action will continue with Plaintiff
Chancellor Wade, and Plaintiff Christopher Butler is dismissed
without prejudice from the action, but he may file a separate
action and pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in
forma pauperis, Judge Hamilton said.
Judge Hamilton directs the Clerk of Court to issue a summons and
for the United States Marshal to serve, without prepayment of
fees, copies of the complaint with attachments and copies of this
order on these Defendants: Chief on Inmate Appeals M. Voong,
Warden S. Hatton, Community Resource Manager Lisa Urquidez and
Muslim Chaplain Tariq Aquil, all at Correctional Training
Facility-Soledad and Secretary of CDCR Scott Kernan.
"It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case.
Plaintiff must keep the court informed of any change of address by
filing a separate paper with the clerk headed 'Notice of Change of
Address.' He also must comply with the court's orders in a timely
fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this
action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b)," Judge Hamilton stated.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QUNPEDw8
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Suit over Dec. 2015 Debt Exchange Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
California Resources Corporation continues to defend a class
action lawsuit related to its December 2015 debt exchange, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.
The Company said, "On April 21, 2016, a purported class action was
filed against us in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all beneficial owners
of our unsecured notes from November 12, 2015 to the present. The
complaint alleges that our December 2015 debt exchange excluded
non-qualified institutional holders in violation of the Trust
Indenture Act of 1939 and related law and, thereby, impaired their
rights to receive principal and interest payments. The purported
class action seeks declaratory relief that the debt exchange and
the liens securing the new notes are null and void and that the
debt exchange resulted in a default. The plaintiff also seeks
monetary damages and attorneys' fees. We plan to vigorously
defend against the claims made by the plaintiff."
California Resources is an independent oil and natural gas
exploration and production company operating properties within the
state of California.
CANADA: Class Action Mulled Over Rejected Qalipu Applications
-------------------------------------------------------------
VOCM reports that a man originally from Corner Brook is hoping to
be named as the representative plaintiff in a class action on
behalf of thousands of people whose applications for Qalipu
Mi'kmaq status were recently rejected.
Doug Doucette lives in Calgary and says while his mother was
accepted, he and his brother were both rejected.
He is the first cousin of Qalipu Chief Brendan Mitchell.
Mr. Doucette, who has a legal background as a former lawyer says
he's typical of the thousands of people who have been rejected.
He says if he is not accepted as a representative plaintiff, he
will pursue the lawsuit on his own.
He says he'd like to see the 2013 Supplemental Agreement tossed
out for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact
that it wasn't signed until June of 2013 by the Federation of
Newfoundland Indians instead of the band which had been in
existence for nearly two years.
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Documents Unsealed in Minimum-Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Wheeler, writing for Pension Plan Puppets, reports that when
we talk about the ongoing class action lawsuit former players
filed against the Canadian Hockey League (CHL) over demands for an
hourly minimum wage, we're talking about more than 100 documents,
comprising thousands upon thousands of pages.
As someone who is currently minoring in law, with a focus on
employment and labour law, and who has written about the case
dating back to when it was first filed, I still didn't know where
to start when I received all of the recently unsealed documents.
They range from Smith Forensic Inc.'s evaluation of tax returns,
balance sheets, financial statements and revenue statements for
each of the Western Hockey League's and Ontario Hockey League's
teams, to those very documents, and ultimately the CHL's league-
wide financial outlook -- which includes its stunning agreement
with the NHL. All of these league and team financials date back
to 2012.
It's a lot.
After sifting through the majority of the documents for the better
part of a month, here's what I found.
The CHL-NHL Agreement
This is the most revealing of the CHL-wide documents. In November
of 2013, the CHL entered into a lucrative deal with the NHL that
runs until June 30, 2020. The seven-season agreement pays the CHL
as much as nearly $80-million over the entirety of the deal,
labelled as a 'grant'. This includes substantial benefits for
individual teams that graduate players to the NHL.
A CHL team is paid up to $60,000 for each player that is signed to
an NHL contract and $75,000 for each goalie who agrees to an
entry-level contract. CHL teams receive an additional $17,000 per
player and $20,000 per goalie if they consent to any junior player
18 years or older being made available to his NHL club. If a CHL
graduate plays in the NHL at 18 and 19, his team can profit off of
him as much as $145,000 for a player and $175,000 for a goalie.
If Player is retained for the entire NHL season as an 18 year old
and for all or part of the second consecutive NHL season as a 19
year old, $145,000 for a player and $175,000 for a goaltender.
If a player is recalled under emergency conditions, CHL teams
receive $1,000 per game played.
As part of the agreement, the NHL also reimburses the CHL more
than $255,000 a year to train players on substance abuse,
gambling, and assault, as well as more than $315,000 per season
for training on concussions, symptoms, and other head injuries.
The agreement is broken down, year-over-year, to compensate the
CHL the following:
CHL-NHL Agreement Annual Grants
Year Season Amount
1 2013/14 $10,200,000
2 2014/15 $10,600,000
3 2015/16 $11,000,000
4 2016/17 $11,400,000
5 2017/18 $11,800,000
6 2018/19 $12,200,000
7 2019/20 $12,600,000
The CHL's 2015-16 Tax Returns
In tax returns filed in 2016, the CHL listed its amounts received
(gross sales and revenue from organizational activities) at more
than $24.4-million, broken down as such:
CHL Amounts Received (2015-16 Tax Returns)
Description Amount
Sponsorship and Right Fees $10,152,015
NHL Development $11,475,968
Marketing and Events $2,419,045
Administration $146,739
Import Draft Fees $244,900
Total $24,438,667
This revenue was offset by the league's claimed expenses of
roughly $22-million, for a claimed net income of $1,677,963.
Individual OHL/WHL Team Finances
The financial records for each of OHL and WHL team also proved to
be revealing.
As already reported by TSN's Rick Westhead, the individual
decision-making of some teams has been suspect in the last few
years. Tax returns for the Niagara IceDogs, for example, show
that the team leases four BMWs, with payments exceeding $17K a
year alone on its 2015 BMW 650i xDrive.
According to their most recent financial statements, the Kitchener
Rangers and Edmonton Oil Kings are the highest revenue generators
in their respective leagues, at $6.5-million and $6.6-million
respectively. The Kingston Frontenacs ($1.3-million) and Kootenay
Ice ($1.2-million) reported the lowest revenues.
Very few of the OHL's and the WHL's teams have been audited in
recent memory, and their financial claims are thus extremely
difficult to verify. Most OHL and WHL teams opt against
commissioning audits of their finances. In 2016, only three OHL
teams were audited (the Otters due to bankruptcy concerns, the
67's due to an agreement with the City of Ottawa, and the
Rangers).
In Ronald Smith's forensic analysis of WHL and OHL documents, he
found that claimed expenses for almost every team were impossible
to verify against because so little was done to explain the costs
associated with the teams.
After reviewing the financial records which have been made
available to us, we were unable to carry out the usual procedures
that we would employ, as described above, because we do not have
access to the teams and because there is not enough information.
Some of the teams prepared their own financial statements
internally, without proper notes and/or expense account details,
while other teams provided notice to reader financial statements
that lack notes and/or expense account details, and some teams did
not provide any financial statements, only summary income
statements with virtually no notes provided.
We have been able to identify a number of issues which, in our
opinion, demonstrate that basically just taking the teams'
reported revenues and expenses over a five-year period at face
value does not provide a reasonable basis to determine what the
impact would be on the teams if they had to pay the players
minimum wage.
In the WHL, specifically, Mr. Smith found that KPMG overstated the
losses of the Everett Silvertips, while "There were significant
expenses relating to management fees and remuneration for
employees/directors, that are at times very significant and may
not represent full economic value to the team."
In the OHL, Mr. Smith found similar issues, including KPMG errors
with regards to the Ottawa 67's, and omissions by the Barrie
Colts:
The Barrie Colts appear to have charged its parent company
approximately $3,577,000 in fees during the team's 2012 to 2015
fiscal years for "providing hockey product". We do not know the
details of the services that were provided and how the operations
of the parent corporation interrelate with those of the team, on
either a business or financial basis.
Nonetheless, below are the full financials for the most recent
reported year for all WHL and OHL teams (excepting the Portland
Winterhawks, whose financal statements were not submitted in the
unsealed documents). Note: All United States-based teams are
listed in USD.
OHL/WHL Team Finances
Team Claimed Revenue Claimed Profit/Loss
Erie Otters $1.5 million -$831,393
Flint Firebirds $1.7 million -$477,933
Guelph Storm $2.7 million $398,739
Hamilton Bulldogs $3.1 million -$678,743
Kingston Frontenacs $1.3 million $707,488
Kitchener Rangers $6.5 million $163,498
London Knights $6.2 million $1.9 million
Mississauga Steelheads $1.8 million -$485,381
Niagara IceDogs $4.6 million $643,544
North Bay Battalion $3 million -$99,632
Oshawa Generals $5 million $323,518
Ottawa 67s $2.5 million -$950,073
Owen Sound Attack $2.3 million $111,930
Peterborough Petes $1.8 million -$222,332
Saginaw Spirit $2.6 million -$329,190
Sarnia Sting $2.2 million -$497,282
S.S. Marie Greyhounds $3 million $216,274
Sudbury Wolves $3.6 million $90,638
Windsor Spitfires $4.4 million -$200,459
Brandon Wheat Kings $3.6 million $779,948
Calgary Hitmen $4.3 million -$387,333
Edmonton Oil Kings $6.6 million $1.4 million
Everett Silvertips $4 million $263,337
Kamloops Blazers $3 million -$56,150
Kelowna Rockets $4.7 million $185,216
Kootenay Ice $1.2 million -$155,897
Lethbridge Hurricanes $3.1 million $197,253
Medicine Hat Tigers $3.2 million $205,236
Moose Jaw Warriors $3.1 million -$36,800
Prince Albert Raiders $2.2 million $249,471
Prince George Cougars $2.4 million -$785,280
Red Deer Rebels $4.5 million -$1,245
Regina Pats $4.2 million -$898,331
Saskatoon Blades $2.6 million -$248,890
Seattle Thunderbirds $5.6 million $937,442
Spokane Chiefs $3.8 million $173,179
Swift Current Broncos $3.2 million $144,644
Tri-City Americans $2.6 million -$309,395
Vancouver Giants $4.3 million -$725,014
Victoria Royals $3.1 million -$1.5 million
CARGO FORCE: "Cabanas" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
Carlos A. Cabanas, Herlam E. Figueroa, Abel Prieto and Moises
Roman, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v.
Cargo Force, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-20975-JLK (S.D.
Fla., March 15, 2017), seeks payment of wages and overtime pay.
The suit alleges violation of the record keeping requirements
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs worked as ramp agent for the Defendant.
Cargo Force is a service company providing full aircraft ground
support, and cargo handling services to airlines serving Miami
International Airport. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
Zandro E. Palma, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (305) 446-1500
Fax: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
CHICAGO, IL: KCL Seeks Certification of Classes and Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled KEEP CHICAGO LIVABLE, an
Illinois not-for-profit corporation, and BENJAMIN THOMAS WOLF,
SUSAN MALLER, DANIELLE MCCARRON, ANTOINETTE WONSEY, MONICA WOLF
and JOHN DOE, individuals v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal
corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-10371 (N.D. Ill.), move the Court to
certify two classes of plaintiffs -- shared housing hosts and
guests of shared housing hosts on Airbnb and other similar short-
term rental intermediaries.
The two Classes and two Subclasses are defined as follows (with
respective proposed representatives):
-- Class "A" -- "Shared housing hosts." Representative
parties: KCL and Benjamin Thomas Wolf;
* Subclass "A1" -- "Shared housing hosts that live in
apartment buildings with guest suites." Representative
parties: KCL and Susan Maller; and
* Subclass "A2" -- "Shared housing hosts who live in
buildings on the Prohibited Buildings List."
Representative parties: KCL and Danielle McCarron; and
-- Class "B" -- "guests of shared housing hosts."
Representative parties, KCL, Monica Wolf and John Doe.
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to designate Attorney Shorge K.
Sato, Esq., as class counsel.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6BewJC6Z
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shorge Kenneth Sato, Esq.
SHOKEN LEGAL, LTD.
125 South Clark Street, Floor 17
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (773) 206-7630
E-mail: shorge@rdlawyers.com
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces "Sparks" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Children's
Place, Inc. The case is captioned as NICOLE SPARKS and AMIRAH
PASHA, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES,
the Plaintiffs, v. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01057-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Mar. 9, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Gene E.K. Pratter.
Children's Place is an American specialty retailer of children's
apparel and accessories. The company also markets apparel under
the Children's Place, Place, and Baby Place brand names.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC
801 N Kings Highway
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Telephone: (856) 663 8200
E-mail: mgalpern@lockslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Martha J. Keon
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
1601 Cherry Street
Three Parkway, Suite 1400
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 402 3000
E-mail: mkeon@littler.com
CHILDRENS HOSPITAL: "Kuenstle" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID KUENSTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. CHILDRENS HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES
MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through
25, Defendants, Case No. B0 653858 (Cal. Super., County of Los
Angeles, March 10, 2017), alleges that Defendants violated the
California Labor Code, which required Defendants to compensate
Plaintiff and the Class no less than one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for any hours worked in excess of eight hours
in any day and 40 hours in any one workweek, and further required
Defendants to compensate Plaintiff and the Class no less than
twice their regular rate of pay for any hours worked in excess of
12 hours in any one day.
Childrens Hospital Los Angeles Medical Group, Inc. operates a
hospital that serves children and adolescents in California.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a physician.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq.
GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
15260 Ventura BIvd, Suite 1920
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (213) 542-2100
Fax: (213) 542-2101
- and -
Marshall A. Caskey, Esq.
Daniel M. Holzman, Esq.
CASKEY & HOLZMAN
24025 Park Sorrento, Ste. 400
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 657-1070
Fax: (818)297-1775
CIRCLE IN THE SQUARE: Faces "Lasser" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Circle in the
Square, Inc. The case is titled as Mark B. Lasser, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Circle in the Square, Inc., Juniper Street Productions, Inc.,
Alchemy Production Group, LLC, and John Does no. 1-4, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01745 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 8, 2017).
The Circle in the Square Theatre is a Broadway theatre in midtown
Manhattan.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
CITIGROUP INC: Court Denied Certification of Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CAROLINE ALANA LEWIS-GURSKY, and RUBEN
CHEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. CITIGROUP, INC., and JUDGE TECHNICAL SERVICES,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-02887-SCB-MAP (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Susan S. Bucklew entered an order:
1. denying Plaintiffs' corrected motion for court-authorized
notice;
2. denying Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a reply in
Support of its motion for court-authorized notice;
3. denying as moot Plaintiffs' motion to strike declarations
of undisclosed witnesses and testimony regarding unproduced
documents.
The parties are directed to file a supplemental case management
report that addresses deadlines for the rest of the case by April
3, 2017. Additionally, if the opt-in Plaintiffs wish to
participate in this matter further, Plaintiffs are directed to
file a motion to amend the complaint, which amendment shall be
limited solely to adding the opt-in Plaintiffs as named
plaintiffs, by March 27, 2017.
The Court said, "Plaintiffs have not shown a reasonable basis for
their claim that the members of the proposed collective are
similarly situated based on their job requirements and pay
provisions. The proposed collective encompasses employees from
different staffing agencies located in multiple states and
offices, with materially different job titles and duties.
Therefore, the Court will exercise its discretion and deny
certification of a collective action".
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IbuTfHuw
CITIZENS INC: "Gamboa" Sues Over Inflated Stock Prices
------------------------------------------------------
Juan Gamboa, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Citizens, Inc., Harold E. Riley, Rick D.
Riley, Kay E. Osbourn, Geoffrey M. Kolander and David S.
Jorgensen, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00241 (W.D. Tex., March
16, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages for violation of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Defendants failed to disclose that the Company's brokers and
pitchbooks falsely claim that most of the funds from its insurance
policies are directly invested in U.S. Treasury Bond but are
instead funneled into continuous open market purchases that have
inflated the Company's stock price.
Citizens, through its subsidiaries, provides life insurance
products in the United States and internationally. Citizens is
incorporated in Colorado and headquartered at 400 East Anderson
Lane, Austin, Texas. Citizens' securities trade on the New York
Stock Exchange.
Plaintiff represents a class who purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly traded securities of Citizens from March 11, 2015
through March 8, 2017.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yusuf Bajwa, Esq.
SANDERS BAJWA LLP
919 Congress Avenue, Suite 750
Austin, TX 78701
Tel: (512) 535-5207
Fax: (512) 270-5111
Email: ybajwa@sandersbajwa.com
- and -
Phillip Kim, Esq., Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
CLARENCE DAVIDS: Court Granted Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John Z. Lee entered an order in the lawsuit titled Ramiro
Balderrama-Baca, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Clarence Davids and
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-05873 (N.D. Ill.),
granting Plaintiffs' Rule 23 motion for class certification.
According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 10, 2017,
the Plaintiffs may proceed with their IWPCA claims on behalf of
three subclasses.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iRC7NhHF
COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA: May 10 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEGAL NOTICE AUTHORIZED BY THE ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE,
THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
QUEBEC
VEHICLE CARRIER SERVICES CLASS ACTION
Did you pay to ship a car or other vehicle or equipment on wheels
from an overseas location to Canada between February 1, 1997 and
December 31, 2012? Your legal rights could be affected.
WHAT IS THIS CLASS ACTION ABOUT?
In 2013, class proceedings were initiated in Ontario by Harrison
Pensa, in British Columbia by Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman and
in Qu‚bec by Belleau Lapointe, s.e.n.c.r.l. (collectively "Class
Counsel") on behalf of Canadians who purchased Vehicle Carrier
Services, or purchased or leased a new Vehicle transported by RoRo
between February 1, 1997 and December 31, 2012 (the
"Vehicle Carrier Services Class Action")1. "Vehicle Carrier
Services" means paid international ocean shipping services via
roll on/roll off vessels ("RoRo") of cargo, such as new and used
cars and trucks, as well as agricultural, construction and
mining equipment (collectively, "Vehicles"). A "RoRo" is a type
of ocean vessel that allows wheeled vehicles to be driven on
and off the vessel and parked on its decks for ocean transport.
It is alleged that among other things, customers were
overcharged for Vehicle Carrier Services as the defendants
participated in an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain,
increase, or control the price for Vehicle Carrier Services.
SETTLEMENT WITH COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA DE VAPORES S.A.
("CSAV")
A Settlement Agreement has been reached with CSAV which
is one of 20 defendants involved in this litigation. CSAV has
agreed to pay CAD $450,000.00 for the benefit of Settlement
Class Members and to provide co-operation to the Plaintiffs in
pursuing their claims against the non-settling defendants. This
cooperation includes information provided to the United States
Department of Justice. CSAV has also committed to making
available an employee with relevant knowledge, within certain
constraints.
In exchange, CSAV and related entities will be provided with a
full release of claims against them in relation to Vehicle Carrier
Services. CSAV does not admit any wrongdoing in connection with
the case and it had no direct sales of its services into Canada
during the relevant time.
The litigation continues against the non-settling defendants.
DISTRIBUTION OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS
The settlement amount, net of notice costs, Class Counsel
fees, disbursements and applicable taxes will be held in an
interest bearing trust account for the benefit of the Settlement
Class Members (the "Settlement Fund").
The Settlement Fund will not be distributed to Class Members
at this time. The continuing litigation may or may not result in
further settlements or judgments. If there is a further recovery,
it will be added to the present settlement amount and an efficient
distribution will be made at an appropriate time. The Courts will
approve the distribution process.
CERTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
The Proceedings have been certified against the Settling
Defendant for the purposes of the settlement approval.
SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND COUNSEL FEES
The settlement must be approved by the Courts before it
becomes effective. Hearings are to take place at the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice on May 29, 2017 at 9:30 am at 80
Dundas Street, London, Ontario, at the Supreme Court of
British Columbia on June 7, 2017 at 9:00 am at 800 Smithe
Street, Vancouver, British Columbia and at the Superior Court
of Quebec on May 16, 2017 at 12:00 pm at 1,rue Notre-Dame
Est, Montreal, Quebec. At these hearings, the Courts will
determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and in the
best interests of the class members. The lawyers for the
Plaintiffs will also be requesting that legal fees of up to 25
percent of the settlement funds plus disbursements and
applicable taxes be approved by the Courts and paid out of the
settlement funds.
If you do not oppose the proposed Settlement Agreement,
you do not need to appear at the hearing or take any other
action at this time.
If you wish to comment on or object to the Settlement
Agreement, you must deliver a written submission to the
appropriate lawyer below by May 1, 2017. The lawyer will
forward any submissions to the appropriate Court.
If the Settlement Agreement is approved by the Courts further
notices will be posted online at www.roroclassaction.com and
www.actioncollectiveroro.com.
OPTING OUT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
If you want to participate as a class member, you do not need
to do anything at this time. You will be able to participate in
the case and you will be legally bound by the result of the
Vehicle Carrier Services Class Action. If you do not opt-out, you
will be bound by any Settlement Agreement approved by the Court
and may not opt-out of this action in the future.
If you do not want to be a class member for the Vehicle Carrier
Services Class Action, you must opt-out by May 10, 2017. To
opt-out please send a signed written election to opt-out by
prepaid mail, courier, fax or email to RicePoint Administration
Inc. (support@ricepoint.com, 1 (866) 432-5534) or the
appropriate Class Counsel. The election should include (a)
your full name and current address and (b) a statement
indicating you wish to be excluded from the proceedings.
Harrison Pensa LLP
Tel: 1.800.263.0489 ext. 759
roroclassaction@harrisonpensa.com
Belleau Lapointe LLP
Tel: 1.888.987.6701
info@belleaulapointe.com
Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman
Tel: 1.800.689.2322
info@cfmlawyers.ca
If you opt-out you will not be able to participate in the
Settlement or any future Settlement or Judgment. You cannot
opt back in at a later date. You may be able to bring your own
lawsuit at your own expense.
MORE INFORMATION
More detailed information is available at
www.roroclassaction.com and www.actioncollectiveroro.com.
1 The class proceedings were brought against the following
defendants: Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, NYK Line (North
America) Inc., NYK Line (Canada), Inc., Mitsui O.S.K.
Lines, Ltd., Mitsui O.S.K. Bulk Shipping (U.S.A.), Inc., Kawasaki
Kisen Kaisha, Ltd., "K" Line America, Inc., EUKOR Vehicle Car
Carriers, Inc., Wilh. Wilhelmsen Holding ASA, Wilh. Wilhelmsen
ASA, Wallenius Lines AB, Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics Americas,
LLC, Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics AS, WWL Vehicle Services
Canada Ltd., Compania Sud Americana De Vapores S.A., Nissan Motor
Car Carrier Co., Ltd., World Logistics Service (USA) Inc., CSAV
Agency North America, LLC, H”egh Autoliners AS, and H”egh
Autoliners, Inc.
COMPUMED INC: "Geismann" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RADHA GEISMANN, MD., P.C., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, v.
COMPUMED, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-
cv-00832-NCC (Mo. Cir. Ct.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for
certification of a class of:
"all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
filing of this action (2) were sent by or on behalf of
Defendants any telephone facsimile transmission of material
making known the commercial existence of, or making
qualitative statements regarding any property, goods, or
services (3) with respect to whom Defendants cannot provide
evidence of prior express permission of invitation for the
sending of such faxes, (4) with whom Defendants does not have
an establish business relationship or (5) which were sent and
advertisement by fax which did not display opt out notice."
The Plaintiff further moves the Court to appoint herself as class
representative, and appoints her attorney's as class counsel.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IhlK4xSg
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max G. Margulis, Esq.
MARGULIS LAW GROUP
28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
Chester, MO 63017
Telephone: (636) 536 7022
Facsimile: (636) 536 6652
- and -
Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
ANDERSON & WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368 1500
Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
COMPUTER CREDIT: Faces "Jackson" Suit in New York Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against COMPUTER CREDIT,
INC. The case is captioned as JACKSON, KILEY OBO HIMSELF AND
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. COMPUTER CREDIT,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 613935/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Mar. 8,
2017). The case is assigned to Hon. William B. Rebolini.
Computer Credit is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert L. Dougherty, Esq.
226 Seventh Street, Ste 202
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 873 0808
The Defendant is represented by:
Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
775 Park Ave, Suite 255
Huntington, NY 11743
Telephone: (631) 629 7709
CONNECTICUT: Settles Class Action Over Delayed Food Stamps
----------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart, writing for CTNewsJunkie, reports that five
years after filing a federal lawsuit against the state to force it
to issue food stamps in a timely manner, legal aid attorneys said
they've reached a settlement.
Greater Hartford Legal Aid and the National Center for Law and
Economic Justice, which brought the class action lawsuit against
the state in 2012, announced the settlement on March 13. The
settlement requires the Department of Social Services to process
food stamp applications and provide benefits to eligible
households in a timely manner.
That means needy households must get benefits within 30 days and
the lowest income households must get assistance within seven
days. The consent order further requires the state to provide
extensive reporting on the applications to demonstrate its
compliance. The federal court will retain oversight of the
compliance.
When the lawsuit was filed in March 2012, DSS had told lawmakers
that anywhere between 20 to 40 percent of food stamp applications
had been pending for 30 days or longer. Now the agency handles 94
percent of the 30 day applications on time.
"DSS has made great improvements in the processing of food stamps
applications since the class action was filed" Lucy Potter, a GHLA
attorney, said. At the time the plaintiffs filed the suit,
Connecticut was ranked among the worst states in the country in
providing food assistance to needy families in a timely manner.
"We are gratified that the state will be working to ensure that
low-income families in Connecticut will receive critical
assistance in a timely fashion," Gina Mannix of NCLEJ added.
The benefit received by food stamp recipients depends on income
and expenses but the maximum benefit for a single person is $194
per month and $649 per month.
There are more than 405,000 Connecticut residents receiving food
stamps.
David Dearborn, a spokesman with the Department of Social
Services, said the reason they were able to improve their
performance and become one of the best performing states is a
result of the modernization process, including online applications
and investments in technology.
He said the settlement agreement "itself resolves disputes about
the agency's performance in 2011 and earlier, while echoing our
commitment to providing excellent customer service and continuing
our current superior application timeliness performance."
DAVE & BUSTER'S: Faces "Short" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCELLA SHORT, Individually, on behalf of herself and on behalf
of all other similarly situated current and former employees,
Plaintiffs, v. DAVE & BUSTER'S, INC., DAVE & BUSTER'S
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., DAVE & BUSTER'S MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, INC.,
DAVE & BUSTER'S HOLDINGS, INC., and TANGO OF TENNESSEE, INC. a/k/a
Dave & Buster's Grand Sports Cafe, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00536 (M.D. Tenn., March 13, 2017), alleges that Defendants have a
centralized plan, policy and practice (scheme) of working
Plaintiff and similarly situated class members "off the clock"
and, "editing" their time records, in a variety of ways in
violation the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants own and operate or, have owned and operated, Dave &
Buster's restaurants. Plaintiff Marcella Short was employed by
Defendants as a tipped employee at one of their restaurants.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 759-1745
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
jholt@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
pjackson@jsyc.com
DEVON ENERGY: "Martinez" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Luis Martinez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Devon Energy Corp., Case No. 6:17-cv-00164, (E.D.
Tex., March 16, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Devon is in the business of providing safety personnel offering
safety services to operators and other oil field services
companies. Martinez, a Safety Consultant, typically worked 12-hour
shifts, 7 days a week, for weeks at a time but never received
overtime pay. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
mparmet@brucknerburch.com
DR PEPPER: "Chuang" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. District Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jonathan Chuang, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, Dr.
Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Mott's, LLP, a
Delaware corporation; and General Mills, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. BC649291, was removed from the Los Angeles
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District Of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01875 to the
proceeding.
Mott's is an American company involved primarily in producing
apple-based products, particularly juices and sauces. The company
was founded in 1842 by Samuel R. Mott in Bouckville, New York, who
made apple cider and vinegar.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
ECOLAB INC: Suit by Institutional Route Sales Managers Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend wage
hour lawsuits brought by Institutional Route Sales Managers.
The Company is a defendant in several pending wage hour lawsuits
claiming violations of the FLSA or a similar state law.
In Martino v. Ecolab, United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, case no. 5:14-cv-04358-SG, an
action under California state law, the Court has certified a class
of California Institutional Territory Managers alleging violation
of state wage and hour laws. This matter has been settled. The
Company has established an accrual to fund the settlement, which
is not material to its results of operations or financial
position.
The Company is a defendant in other wage hour lawsuits brought by
Institutional Route Sales Managers seeking class certification of
claims for overtime and other relief under federal or state laws.
None of these matters are considered to be material to the
Company's results of operations or financial position.
ELITE HOME: "Menichiello" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Menichiello, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Elite Home Energy, Inc., and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case
No. 8:17-cv-00472, (C.D. Cal., March 16, 2017), asserts invasion
of privacy, and seeks damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and related regulations, specifically the National
Do-Not-Call provisions.
Elite Home Energy, Inc. is a home energy company from whom the
Plaintiff received numerous solicitation calls but has not granted
prior express consent and did not have an established business
relationship with Defendant. [BN]
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
ERIC POCEVIC: Overtime Pay Sought in "Miranda" Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Mauro Martinez Miranda, Individually and On Behalf of All
Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiff, v. Eric Robert Pocevic,
individually and as Independent Commercial Contractors, Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00845, (S.D. Tex., March 16, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
Mauro M. Miranda was employed by the Defendant from mid-2016 until
February of 2017 as a construction worker, installing sheetrock,
framing, working with concrete as a finisher installing and
repairing concrete walls and other structures, as well as doing
other general construction work. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
Houston, TX 77018
Tel: 713-868-3388
Fax: 713-683-9940
Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
vijay@buenkerlaw.com
FARM NECK: Faces "Shkuratova" Suit in Massachusetts Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farm Neck
Association, Inc. The case is captioned as ANNA SHKURATOVA,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. FARM NECK ASSOCIATION, INC., d/b/a Farm Neck Golf
Club, Pascal Bitoun, Timothy D. Sweet, and John and Jane Doe 1-10,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10388 (D. Mass., Mar. 8,
2017).[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
FIFTH THIRD: Pre-Trial Proceedings in "Klopfenstein" Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that pre-trial proceedings
are ongoing in the case, Klopfenstein v. Fifth Third Bank.
On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a
lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v.
Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third
disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. Early Access
is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with
checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide
class of customers who used the Early Access program and repaid
their cash advances within 30 days.
On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In 2013, four
similar putative class actions were filed against Fifth Third Bank
in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and Danielle
Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third Bank,
Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v. Fifth
Third Bank). Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern
District of Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In
re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation. On behalf of
a putative class, the plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary and
statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorney's
fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the
consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the TILA. The parties
are currently engaged in pre-trial proceedings. No trial date has
been scheduled.
FLOWERS FOODS: "Soares" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MARK SOARES and BRIAN BOTELHO, the
Plaintiffs, v. FLOWERS FOODS, Inc., FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF
CALIFORNIA, FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF MODESTO, FLOWERS BAKERIES
BRANDS, Inc., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:15-cv-04918-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the
Court for an order to certify a class of:
"all persons who have personally serviced a territory in
Northern California (i.e., areas from Visalia north to the
Oregon Border and from the Pacific Coast to the Nevada border)
under a Flowers Baking Company of California and/or Flowers
Baking Company of Modesto 'Distributor Agreement' that they
entered into on behalf of themselves or entities in which they
have a majority ownership interest (referred to as
"Distributors") during the period commencing February 25, 2013
through to the date of class certification".
The Plaintiffs further seek to have certified for resolution on
behalf of this class each of the causes of action pled in their
Class Action Complaint, which include claims for reimbursement of
business expenses, unlawful deductions from wages, failure to
provide off-duty meal periods, failure to authorize and permit
paid rest periods, failure to furnish accurate wage statements
under Cal. Labor Code, and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law.
The Plaintiffs also seek to have the Plaintiffs' Counsel to be
appointed as Class Counsel.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TDhL1t42
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter Rukin, Esq.
Valerie Brender, Esq.
RUKIN HYLAND LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 2150
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 421 1800
Facsimile: (415) 421 1700
E-mail: prukin@rhdtlaw.comm
vbrender@rhdtlaw.com
- and -
Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
Beth Ross, Esq.
Elizabeth Gropman, Esq.
LEONARD CARDER, LLP
1330 Broadway, Suite 1450
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 272 0169
Facsimile: (510) 272 0174
E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
bross@leonardcarder.com
egropman@leonardcarder.com
FLOWERS FOODS: Distributors Class Certified in "Rosinbaum" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Louise W. Flanagan granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification of one class in the lawsuit captioned
BOBBY JO ROSINBAUM and ROBERT WILLIAM MORGAN, JR., individually
and on behalf all similarly situated individuals v. FLOWERS FOODS,
INC., and FRANKLIN BAKING CO., LLC, Case No. 7:16-cv-00233-FL
(E.D.N.C.).
The Class will include:
All persons who are or have performed work as distributors
for defendants under a distributor agreement with Franklin
Baking Company, LLC or a similar written contract entered
into during the period commencing three years prior to the
commencement of this action through May 15, 2017, and
who file a consent to join this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
216(b).
No subclasses will be certified, although the parties may raise a
motion for certification of subclasses if and when they deem
appropriate, Judge Flanagan noted.
The Court approved the Plaintiffs' proposed notice, as modified,
and the opt-in period will extend to May 30, 2017. The Defendants
are directed to provide contact information for all potential
class members in accordance with the order. The parties are
directed to confer and file a joint status report on the docket.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E5NHT0Ct
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: "Taylor" Sues Over Unfair Service Charge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Taylor, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Frontier Communications Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00476, (D. Md., March 16, 2017), seeks
damages, full restitution of all funds acquired from Plaintiff,
punitive damages, statutory enhanced damages, including, but not
limited to for statutory damages, all reasonable and necessary
attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and all
other relief, general or special, legal and equitable for
violation of the California False Advertising Act and Unfair
Competition Law of the California Business and Professions Code.
Defendant is into the sale and distribution of internet and
telephone services. Taylor alleges that Frontier charged her more
than the actual service charge on their advertisement. [BN]
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
GAW MINERS: Audet Asks Court to Certify Default Judgment Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned DENIS MARC AUDET, MICHAEL
PFEIFFER, DEAN ALLEN SHINNERS, and JASON VARGAS, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. STUART A. FRASER,
GAW MINERS, LLC, and ZENMINER, LLC, (d/b/a ZEN CLOUD), Case No.
3:16-cv-00940-MPS (D. Conn.), ask the Court to:
(1) certify a default judgment class for the purposes of
obtaining a default judgment against Defendants GAW
Miners, LLC and ZenMiner, LLC;
(2) enter a default judgment against the Default Defendants;
and
(3) appoint Susman Godfrey LLP as class counsel.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qpL6UpeO
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
29 S. Main St., Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 493-6292
Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
E-mail: mkindall@ikrlaw.com
rizard@ikrlaw.com
- and -
Marc Seltzer, Esq.
Kathryn Hoek, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
khoek@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Seth Ard, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019-6022
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Matthew Allen, Esq.
Colin Watterson, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 651-9366
Facsimile: (713) 654-3367
E-mail: mallen@susmangodfrey.com
cwatterson@susmangodfrey.com
GENERAL CABLE: Eley Files Suit in Kentucky, Seeks Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Lonnie M. Eley, Plaintiff, on behalf of the General Cable Savings
and Investment Plan, himself, and a class consisting of similarly
situated participants of the Plan v. General Cable Corporation, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00045-DLB-JGW (E.D. Ky., March
15, 2017), seeks damages due to the action of the Defendants in
allowing General Cable stock to be hyped instead of protecting the
Plan.
During the Class Period, General Cable and the Defendants
continued to issue misstatements about General Cable's legal
compliance and sustained profits which were the result of the
payment of numerous bribes in at least five separate countries and
over a ten-year span, keeping General Cable Stock artificially
inflated while failing to take any action.
General Cable Corporation is in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald R. Parry, Esq.
Strauss Troy Co LPA
150 East Fourth Street, 4th Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Tel: (513) 621-2120
Fax: (513) 241-8259
Email: rrparry@strausstroy.com
- and -
Michael J. Klein, Esq.
Stull, Stull & Brody
6 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 687-7230
Fax: (212) 490-2022
Email: mklein@ssbny.com
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Certified 2 Subclasses in "Mazzanti" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled GLEN GRAYSON DOREEN MAZZANTI, DANIEL LEVY,
DAVID MEQUET, and LAUREN HARRIS, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:13-cv-01799-
WWE (D. Conn.), the Hon. Warren W. Eginton entered an order:
1. certifying a liability Consumer Protection Law Subclass of:
"all persons residing in the States of Alaska, Arkansas,
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii,
Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, New Jersey,
New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and
the District of Columbia who purchased a GE-branded
microwave oven model number JEB 1090, JEB 1095, ZMC1090,
and/or ZMC 1095 for primarily personal, family or household
purposes and not for resale. Specifically excluded from the
Class are: (1) GE, as well as any entity in which GE has a
controlling interest or which has a controlling interest in
GE and any of GE's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, legal
representatives, assigns, successors, and officers or
directors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and
any member of the judge's immediate family; (3) claims for
personal injury, wrongful death, and/or emotional distress;
and (4) claims for consequential damages flowing from a
manifestation of the glass shattering defect Plaintiffs'
allege";
2. certifying a liability Texas Implied Warranty Subclass of:
"all persons residing in the State of Texas who purchased a
GE-branded microwave oven model number JEB 1090, JEB 1095,
ZMC1090, and/or ZMC 1095. Specifically excluded from the
Class are: (1) GE, as well as any entity in which GE has a
controlling interest or which has a controlling interest in
GE and any of GE's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, legal
representatives, assigns, successors, and officers or
directors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and
any member of the judge's immediate family; (3) claims for
personal injury, wrongful death, and/or emotional distress;
and (4) claims for consequential damages flowing from a
manifestation of the glass shattering defect Plaintiffs'
allege";
3. denying without prejudice the motion to certify a
declaratory judgment/injunction class and any damages
class; and
4. granting motion to appoint as counsel Tycko & Zavareei,
LLP, and Izard Nobel, LLP.
Plaintiffs have alleged that GE-branded microwave oven models
JEB1095, ZMC1090 and ZMC1095 contain defects that render them
unreasonably dangerous and unsuitable for their intended use due
to the occurrences of glass oven doors shattering. GE has
allegedly expressly warranted through its user manuals,
advertisements, pamphlets, brochures, circulars, samples and
models that these models were fit for the ordinary purpose for
which such goods are used.
A copy of the Order available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7voNq2pB
GIBSON & SHARPS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MATTHEW BANNIER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GIBSON
& SHARPS, P.S.C., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00343 (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order certifying
a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and grant the parties relief from the
local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that
Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this
motion.
To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).
As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HfYglPGk
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Denise L. Morris, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482 8000
Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
dmorris@ademilaw.com
GOOGLE INC: Free Range Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled FREE RANGE CONTENT, INC., a California
corporation, COCONUT ISLAND SOFTWARE, INC., a Hawaii corporation,
TAYLOR CHOSE, a Minnesota resident, and MATTHEW SIMPSON, a British
Columbia, Canada resident, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC, a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:14-cv-02329-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move for class certification for the
following classes:
-- Class seeking declaratory relief for violations of
Cal. Civ. Code:
"all former or current Google AdSense publishers: (1) whose
AdSense accounts were subject to Google's terms and conditions
or terms of service for the U.S., Canada, American Samoa,
Puerto Rico, United States Minor Outlying Islands, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas,
Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Falkland
Islands, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat,
Netherland Antilles, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, or the Turks
and Caicos Islands (the locations at issue); (2) whose AdSense
account Google disabled or terminated for any breach of
contract, including policy violations or invalid activity, on
any date between and including May 20, 2010, and the date of
judgment in this matter; and (3) whose last AdSense program
earnings or unpaid amounts Google withheld in their entirety,
and permanently, in connection with such disablement or
termination.
-- Terms-and-conditions class seeking damages or restitution for
violations of Cal. Civ. Code and the UCL, as well as breach
of contract:
"all former or current Google AdSense publishers: (1) whose
AdSense accounts were subject to Google's terms and conditions
for the locations at issue; (2) whose AdSense account Google
disabled or terminated for any breach of contract, including
policy violations or invalid activity, on any date between and
including May 20, 2010, and April 22, 2013; and (3) whose last
AdSense program earnings or unpaid amounts Google withheld in
their entirety, and permanently, in connection with such
disablement or termination.
-- Terms-of-service class seeking damages or restitution for
violations of Cal. Civ. Code and the UCL, breach of contract,
and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing:
"all former or current Google AdSense publishers: (1) whose
AdSense accounts were subject to Google's terms of service for
the locations at issue; (2) whose AdSense account Google
disabled or terminated for any breach of contract, including
policy violations or invalid activity, on any date between and
including April 23, 2013, and the date of judgment in this
matter; (3) whose last AdSense program earnings or unpaid
amounts Google withheld in their entirety, and permanently, in
connection with such disablement or termination; and (4) who
submitted a written notice of dispute to Google within 30 days
of notice from Google of withholding from their AdSense
publishers' accounts".
Excluded from the proposed classes are Google's officers,
directors, managerial employees, and their immediate families, as
well as this Court and the Court's immediate family members.
The Plaintiffs further asks the Court that Free Range Content,
Inc. (FRC), Coconut Island Software, Inc. (CIS), Taylor Chose, and
Matthew Simpson be appointed class representatives for the Rule
23(b)(2) class; that CIS be appointed for the Rule 23(b)(3) terms-
and-conditions class, and that FRC be appointed for the Rule
23(b)(3) terms-of-service class. Also, Plaintiffs ask that Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP be appointed class counsel.
A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TKa9E7Yj
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Robert F. Lopez, Esq.
Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623 7292
Facsimile: (206) 623 0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
robl@hbsslaw.com
jefff@hbsslaw.com
GOPRO INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Named Lead Counsel in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
On February 6, 2017, Senior District Judge Claudia Wilken of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California appointed Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national
securities law firm, to serve as Lead Counsel in a federal
securities class action lawsuit filed against GoPro, Inc.
("GoPro") (Nasdaq:GPRO) and certain of its officers, captioned
Bielousov v. GoPro, Inc., et al., No. 4:16-CV-06654-CW.
On March 14, 2017, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP filed an amended complaint
in the action on behalf of a class of investors who purchased
GoPro common stock between September 19, 2016 and November 8,
2016, both dates inclusive.
If you purchased GoPro common stock between September 19, 2016 and
November 8, 2016, and you would like to learn about the case or
discuss your legal rights, please contact us by calling Richard
Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by
sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP -- http://www.faruqilaw.com-- is a national
law firm which represents investors and individuals in class
action litigation. The firm is focused on providing exemplary
legal services in complex litigation in the areas of securities,
shareholder, antitrust and consumer litigation, throughout all
phases of litigation. The firm has an experienced trial team
which has achieved significant victories on behalf of the firm's
clients.
GRAND CHINA: "Ting" Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Ting You a/k/a Danny You, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Grand China Buffet & Grill, Inc.
Atlantic Buffet & Grill, LLC, FACB LLC, Qi Feng Chen, Amanda Chen,
Mei Fang Jiang and Hui Chen Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00042
(N.D. W.V., March 16, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage,
unpaid overtime wages, full portion of tips illegally retained,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees and costs under the West Virginia Code Sec. 21-5-5
and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants jointly operate Grand China Buffet & Grill located at
270 Emily Drive, Clarksburg, WV 26301 where Plaintiff worked as a
waiter. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean W. Cook, Esq.
MEYER FORD & GLASSER PLLC
120 Capitol Street
PO. Box 11090
Charleston, WV 25301
Tel: (304) 345-3900
Fax: (304) 345-3935
Email: sean.cook@meyerandford.com
- and -
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
Flushing, NY 11355
Tel: (718) 762-1324
Fax: (718) 762-1342
Email: johntroy@troypllc.com
GUAM INDUSTRIAL: Court Certified Class in "Carlberg" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RUSS CARLBERG, ROEL D. DACASIN, REYNALDO S.
GALVEZ, DELMARIO R. CORTEZ, and GARY CHANG, the Plaintiffs, v.
GUAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES dba GUAM SHIPYARD and MATHEWS POTHEN,
Personally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-00002 (D. Guam), the
Hon. Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood entered an order granting
certification of:
"all persons who were employed by defendant Guam Industrial
Services, Inc., dba Guam Shipyard who were "affected
employees" subject to an "employment loss," as those terms are
defined in 29 U.S.C. section 2101(a)(5) and (6), as a result
of the circumstances, acts and facts related to employee
terminations effected by defendant on or about October 15,
2013, without the notices required by 29 U.S.C. pars 2101
through 2109".
The Court said, "Here, there are approximately 150 proposed class
members that are identified on a "Terminated Employees List." See
Razzano Decl. 9, Ex. A (Terminated Employees List), ECF No. 127.
The Terminated Employees List contains contact phone numbers for
the proposed class members. See id. Additionally, each proposed
class member was allegedly terminated on October 15, 2013, without
notice. Hence, managing a class action for the proposed class
would not be particularly difficult. Guam Shipyard does not argue
that Plaintiffs' WARN Act claims fail the superiority inquiry, and
their arguments related to negligence are moot as Plaintiffs'
negligence claims have been dismissed. Therefore, as all factors
weigh in Plaintiffs' favor, class certification is superior to
other methods available for adjudicating the proposed class's
claims".
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1mSiJbYn
HARBOR FREIGHT: July 7 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Garden City Group, LLC
("GCG") regarding Beck v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.
PLEASE READ - NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
A COURT ORDERED THIS NOTICE TO BE PUBLISHED. YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE
FOR BENEFITS FROM THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION FILED
ON YOUR BEHALF. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT.
A class action settlement has been reached in the lawsuit Beck v.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., Lake County, Ohio Court of Common
Pleas No. 15CV00598. Class Members may ask for a payment, exclude
themselves from the settlement, object to it, or ask to speak at
the upcoming final approval hearing. More detailed information
about the settlement and your options is available at
www.nationalsalepricesettlement.com.
What is the Case About?
Plaintiff contends that Harbor Freight improperly advertised
merchandise at a "sale" or "comp at" price when the same items had
not been sold at the advertised regular or "comp at" price for at
least 28 of the preceding 90 days. Harbor Freight disputes this
and contends that it has always complied with applicable laws.
Who is Included?
Members of the Settlement Class are individuals in the United
States who between April 8, 2011 and December 15, 2016 purchased
any product from Harbor Freight which was advertised with a higher
reference price (e.g., "reg. $XXX," "only $XXX," or "comp. at
$XXX") adjacent to a lower current offering price, but which was
not sold by Harbor Freight at the higher reference price for at
least 28 of the last 90 days prior to purchase, excluding Harbor
Freight's employees, representatives, court officials in this
case, and those already a party to a suit against Harbor Freight
challenging advertised pricing.
What Does the Settlement Provide?
If approved, eligible Class Members who timely file claims may
receive either a check or a Harbor Freight gift card. The amount
of compensation Class Members are eligible for will depend on the
amount of their Harbor Freight purchases; whether they have
supporting documentation (i.e., itemized receipts or credit/debit
card statements) for those purchases; whether they opt for a check
or a gift card; and the number of Class Members who submit valid
claims. Visit www.nationalsalepricesettlement.com for more
details about available compensation.
Plaintiffs will ask the Court for attorney's fees and expenses of
up to $10,000,000 on behalf of the counsel who represented
plaintiffs and the Class. Plaintiffs will also ask the Court for
$10,000 in incentive compensation for Class Representative Beck.
How Do You Ask for a Payment?
To receive a payment, you must complete a Claim Form and mail it,
or submit it online, no later than August 7, 2017. To download a
Claim Form or to submit a claim online, and to view instructions
on how to submit a Claim Form, visit
www.nationalsalepricesettlement.com.
What Are Your Other Options?
If you don't want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must
exclude yourself from the Class by mailing your request to
National Sale Price Settlement, c/o GCG, PO Box 10351, Dublin, OH
43017-5551 by June 7, 2017. If you timely exclude yourself, you
can't get a payment from this settlement. If you have not
excluded yourself from the Class, you may also object to the
settlement by filing a notice of intent to object with the Clerk
of Courts by June 7, 2017. Visit
www.nationalsalepricesettlement.com for details on how to exclude
yourself or to object.
The Court will hold a hearing on July 7, 2017, at 1:15 p.m., at
the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, 47 North Park Place,
Painesville, Ohio 44077, to consider whether to approve the
settlement and the requests for attorney's fees, incentive
payment, court costs, and expenses to be paid by Harbor Freight.
You or your own attorney may ask to appear and speak at the
hearing, at your own cost. If the settlement is approved, Class
Members will release Harbor Freight from liability for the claims
in this case.
To learn more, visit www.nationalsalepricesettlement.com or call
1-888-321-0482. PLEASE DO NOT CALL THE COURT, CLASS REPRESENTATIVE
BECK, HARBOR FREIGHT, OR HARBOR FREIGHT'S COUNSEL REGARDING THIS
MATTER.
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: "Mitchell" Suit Moved to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Perry Mitchell, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Hornbeck Offshore Operators, LLC, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 37-02016-00043213-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00486-
WQH-MDD. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge William Q. Hayes.
Hornbeck Offshore is a leading supplier of offshore transport
services, including supply vessels, tankers and barges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samantha Alane Smith, Esq.
Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C.
4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92604
Telephone: (949) 724 9200
Facsimile: (949) 724 9255
E-mail: samantha@cooper-firm.com
scott@cooper-firm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey Scott Ranen, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMIGH
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 580 3921
Facsimile: (213) 250 7900
E-mail: Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com
IMMEDIATE ACQUISITIONS: Flynn Seeks Certification of Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL FLYNN, on behalf of plaintiff and
the class as defined below, the Plaintiff, v. IMMEDIATE
ACQUISITIONS, LLC, and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-
cv-03071-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill.), Mr. Michael asks the Court to enter
an order determining that the action may proceed as a class action
against Defendant.
The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), Illinois Restricted Call Registry Act
(IRCRA) and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA).
The classes are defined as:
Count I TCPA class:
"(a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior
to the filing of this action, and on or before a date 20 days
following the filing of this action, (c) received calls from
defendants on their cell phones, (d) placed using an automated
dialer";
Count II IRCRA Class:
"(a) all Illinois residents who (b) during a period beginning
one year prior to the filing of this action, (c) received
calls from defendants at a number on the "Do Not Call" list";
and
Count III ICFA Class:
"(a) all persons with phone numbers in the Illinois area codes
(b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing
of this action, and on or before a date 20 days following the
filing of this action, (c) either (i) received calls from
defendants on their cell phones, placed using an automated
dialer or a prerecorded or artificial voice, or (ii) received
calls from defendants at a number on the "Do Not Call" list.
The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the classes.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KjF7DmuV
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
James O. Latturner, Esq.
Michelle A. Alyea, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
20 S. Clark Street, Siote 1500
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 739 4200
Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
INMAN'S AUTO: "Golden" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Broderick Golden, Aurthur Houston and Ricky Lee Dixon,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Inman's Auto Rescue LP, Michael K. Inman, Inman's
Auto Rescue of Houston, LLC and Auto Rescue of San Antonio, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00844, (S.D. Tex., March 16, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime compensation, compensatory damages,
liquidated damages, penalty damages and attorney's fees brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act.
Defendants provide services to motorists whose vehicles have
suffered a mechanical failure that leaves the operator stranded,
such as getting a flat tire, being locked out of their car,
running out of fuel, or a dead battery. Plaintiffs worked as
roadside assistance technicians. They claim to be misclassified as
independent contractors instead of employees. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
Email: scarson@bm.net
sschalman-bergen@bm.net
elechtzin@bm.net
apiazza@bm.net
- and -
David M. Blanchard, Esq.
Daniel C. Tai, Esq.
BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1166
Telephone: (734) 929-4313
Facsimile: (888) 929-5833
Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
tai@bwlawonline.com
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE: Faces "Doe" Suit in District of Columbia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International
Finance Corporation. The case is titled as JUANA DOE I- XVII in
their individual capacity and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION and
IFC ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00363-CRC (D.D.C., Mar. 9, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Christopher R. Cooper.
International Finance is an international financial institution
that offers investment, advisory, and asset management services to
encourage private sector development in developing countries.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marco Simons, Esq.
Marissa Ann Vahlsing, Esq.
EARTHRIGHTS INTERNATIONAL
1612 K Street, NW, Suite 401
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 466 5188 x 103
Facsimile: (202) 466 5189
E-mail: marco@earthrights.org
IXIA: Faces "Joyce" Suit Over Keysight Merger
---------------------------------------------
Brian Joyce, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ixia, Errol Ginsberg, Bethany Mayer, Laurent
Assher, Jonathan Fram, Gail Hamilton and Ilan Daskal, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02071 (C.D. Cal., March 15, 2017), is brought on
behalf of all holders of the common stock of Ixia. The suit seeks
to enjoin the proposed transaction in which Keysight will acquire
each outstanding share of Ixia common stock through a flawed
process and for an inadequate consideration.
According to the complaint, Defendants issued a Poxy with the
intention of soliciting shareholder support for the Proposed
Merger. Each of the Defendants reviewed and authorized the
dissemination of the Proxy Statements, which fails to provide
critical information regarding, amongst other things: (i)
financial projections for the Company; and (ii) the valuation
analyses performed by Deutsche; and (iii) conflicts of interest
faced by the Company management and Duetsche.
Defendant Ixia provides application performance and security
resilience solutions to enterprises, service providers, network
equipment manufactures and governments throughout the world. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Barbara A. Rohn, Esq.
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: (424) 256-2884
Fax: (424) 256-2885
Email: brohr@farugilaw.com
bheikali@farugilaw.com
- and -
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 983-9330
Fax: (212) 983-9331
Email: jwilson@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@monterverdelaw.com
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LETICIA WOODS, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. JEFFERSON CAPITAL
SYSTEMS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00341 (E.D. Wisc.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class,
appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and
further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and grant the parties relief from the
local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that
Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this
motion.
To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).
As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vKa4OJZb
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Denise L. Morris, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482 8000
Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
dmorris@ademilaw.com
MDL 2179: Nalco Still Faces Deepwater Horizon Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Nalco Company continues to defend against claims related to the
Deepwater Horizon Incident, Ecolab Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.
On April 22, 2010, the deepwater drilling platform, the Deepwater
Horizon, operated by a subsidiary of BP plc, sank in the Gulf of
Mexico after a catastrophic explosion and fire that began on April
20, 2010. A massive oil spill resulted. Approximately one week
following the incident, subsidiaries of BP plc, under the
authorization of the responding federal agencies, formally
requested Nalco Company, now an indirect subsidiary of Ecolab, to
supply large quantities of COREXIT(R) 9500, a Nalco oil dispersant
product listed on the U.S. EPA National Contingency Plan Product
Schedule. Nalco Company responded immediately by providing
available COREXIT and increasing production to supply the product
to BP's subsidiaries for use, as authorized and directed by
agencies of the federal government throughout the incident. Prior
to the incident, Nalco and its subsidiaries had not provided
products or services or otherwise had any involvement with the
Deepwater Horizon platform.
On July 15, 2010, BP announced that it had capped the leaking
well, and the application of dispersants by the responding parties
ceased shortly thereafter.
On May 1, 2010, the President appointed retired U.S. Coast Guard
Commandant Admiral Thad Allen to serve as the National Incident
Commander in charge of the coordination of the response to the
incident at the national level. The EPA directed numerous tests of
all the dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product
Schedule, including those provided by Nalco Company, "to ensure
decisions about ongoing dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico are
grounded in the best available science." Nalco Company cooperated
with this testing process and continued to supply COREXIT, as
requested by BP and government authorities. After review and
testing of a number of dispersants, on September 30, 2010, and on
August 2, 2010, the EPA released toxicity data for eight oil
dispersants.
The use of dispersants by the responding parties was one tool used
by the government and BP to avoid and reduce damage to the Gulf
area from the spill. Since the spill occurred, the EPA and other
federal agencies have closely monitored conditions in areas where
dispersant was applied. Nalco Company has encouraged ongoing
monitoring and review of COREXIT and other dispersants and has
cooperated fully with the governmental review and approval
process. However, in connection with its provision of COREXIT,
Nalco Company has been named in several lawsuits.
Cases arising out of the Deepwater Horizon accident were
administratively transferred for pre-trial purposes to a judge in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana with other related cases under In Re: Oil Spill by the
Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20,
2010, Case No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.) ("MDL 2179").
Putative Class Action Litigation
Nalco Company was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants,
in six putative class action complaints related to the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill: Adams v. Louisiana, et al., Case No. 11-cv-
01051 (E.D. La.); Elrod, et al. v. BP Exploration & Production
Inc., et al., 12-cv-00981 (E.D. La.); Harris, et al. v. BP, plc,
et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-02078-CJBSS (E.D. La.); Irelan v. BP
Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-00881 (E.D. La.);
Petitjean, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-00316-RS-
EMT (N.D. Fla.); and, Wright, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No.
1:10-cv-00397-B (S.D. Ala.). The cases were filed on behalf of
various potential classes of persons who live and work in or
derive income from the effected Coastal region. Each of the
actions contains substantially similar allegations, generally
alleging, among other things, negligence relating to the use of
our COREXIT dispersant in connection with the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill. The plaintiffs in these putative class action lawsuits
are generally seeking awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. These cases have
been consolidated in MDL 2179.
Other Related Claims Pending in MDL 2179
Nalco Company was also named, along with other unaffiliated
defendants, in 23 complaints filed by individuals: Alexander, et
al. v. BP Exploration & Production, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00951
(E.D. La.); Best v. British Petroleum plc, et al., Case No. 11-cv-
00772 (E.D. La.); Black v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et
al. Case No. 2:11-cv- 867, (E.D. La.); Brooks v. Tidewater Marine
LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv- 00049 (S.D. Tex.); Capt Ander, Inc.
v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 4:10-cv-00364-RH-WCS (N.D. Fla.);
Coco v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al. (E.D. La.); Danos,
et al. v. BP Exploration et al., Case No. 00060449 (25th Judicial
Court, Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana); Doom v. BP Exploration &
Production, et al. , Case No. 12-cv-2048 (E.D. La.); Duong, et
al., v. BP America Production Company, et al., Case No. 13-cv-
00605 (E.D. La.); Esponge v. BP, P.L.C., et al., Case No. 0166367
(32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana);
Ezell v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-01920-KDE-JCW (E.D.
La.); Fitzgerald v. BP Exploration, et al., Case No. 13-cv-00650
(E.D. La.); Hill v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00471-CG-N
(S.D. Ala.); Hogan v. British Petroleum Exploration & Production,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2012-22995 (District Court, Harris County,
Texas); Hudley v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00532-N (S.D.
Ala.); In re of Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 12-
426 (E.D. La.); Kolian v. BP Exploration & Production, et al. ,
Case No. 12-cv-2338 (E.D. La.); Monroe v. BP, plc, et al., Case
No. 1:10-cv-00472-M (S.D. Ala.); Pearson v. BP Exploration &
Production, Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-863, (E.D. La.); Shimer v. BP
Exploration and Production, et al, Case No. 2:13-cv-4755 (E.D.
La.); Top Water Charters, LLC v. BP, P.L.C., et al., No. 0165708
(32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana);
Toups, et al. v Nalco Company, et al., Case No. 59-121 (25th
Judicial District Court, Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana); and,
Trehern v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00432-HSO-JMR (S.D.
Miss.). The cases were filed on behalf of individuals and entities
that own property, live, and/or work in or derive income from the
effected Coastal region. Each of the actions contains
substantially similar allegations, generally alleging, among other
things, negligence relating to the use of our COREXIT dispersant
in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The plaintiffs
in these lawsuits are generally seeking awards of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Pursuant to orders issued by the court in MDL 2179, the claims
were consolidated in several master complaints, including one
naming Nalco Company and others who responded to the Gulf Oil
Spill (known as the "B3 Master Complaint"). On May 18, 2012, Nalco
filed a motion for summary judgment against the claims in the "B3"
Master Complaint, on the grounds that: (i) Plaintiffs' claims are
preempted by the comprehensive oil spill response scheme set forth
in the Clean Water Act and National Contingency Plan; and (ii)
Nalco is entitled to derivative immunity from suit. On November
28, 2012, the Court granted Nalco's motion and dismissed with
prejudice the claims in the "B3" Master Complaint asserted against
Nalco. The Court held that such claims were preempted by the Clean
Water Act and National Contingency Plan. Because claims in the
"B3" Master Complaint remain pending against other defendants, the
Court's decision is not a "final judgment" for purposes of appeal.
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), plaintiffs will
have 30 days after entry of final judgment to appeal the Court's
decision.
Nalco Company, the incident defendants and the other responder
defendants have been named as first party defendants by Transocean
Deepwater Drilling, Inc. and its affiliates (the "Transocean
Entities") (In re the Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset
Leasing GmbH, et al, MDL No. 2179, Civil Action 10-2771). In April
and May 2011, the Transocean Entities, Cameron International
Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., M-I L.L.C.,
Weatherford U.S., L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc.
(collectively, the "Cross Claimants") filed cross claims in MDL
2179 against Nalco Company and other unaffiliated cross
defendants. The Cross Claimants generally allege, among other
things, that if they are found liable for damages resulting from
the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response,
they are entitled to indemnity or contribution from the cross
defendants.
In April and June 2011, in support of its defense of the claims
against it, Nalco Company filed counterclaims against the Cross
Claimants. In its counterclaims, Nalco Company generally alleges
that if it is found liable for damages resulting from the
Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response, it
is entitled to contribution or indemnity from the Cross Claimants.
In December 2012 and January 2013, the MDL 2179 court issued final
orders approving two settlements between BP and Plaintiffs' Class
Counsel: (1) a proposed Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement;
and (2) a proposed Economic and Property Damages Class Action
Settlement. Pursuant to the proposed settlements, class members
agree to release claims against BP and other released parties,
including Nalco Energy Services, LP, Nalco Holding Company, Nalco
Finance Holdings LLC, Nalco Finance Holdings Inc., Nalco Holdings
LLC and Nalco Company.
In May 2016, Nalco was named in nine additional complaints filed
by individuals alleging, among other things, business and economic
loss resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Seng Lim v.
BP, Case No. 2:16-cv-03950 (E.D. La.); Dai Nguyen v. BP, Case No.
2:16-cv-03952 (E.D. La.); Thanh Duong v. BP, Case No. 2:16-cv-
03953 (E.D. La.); Nghia Nguyen v. BP, Case No. 2:16-cv-03954 (E.D.
La.); Loc Van Nguyen v. BP, Case No. 2:16-cv-03955 (E.D. La.);
Hanh Phan v. BP, Case No. 2:16-cv-03956 (E.D. La.); Anh Ly v. BP,
Case No. 2:16-cv-03957 (E.D. La.); Danny Tam Ly v. BP, Case No.
2:16-cv-04027 (E.D. La.); Terry v. BP, Case No. 2:16-cv-04137
(E.D. La.). The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are generally
seeking awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs. These actions have been
consolidated in the MDL and the Company expects they will be
dismissed pursuant to the Court's November 28, 2012 order granting
Nalco's motion for summary judgment.
The Company believes the claims asserted against Nalco Company are
without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. The
Company also believes that it has rights to contribution and/or
indemnification (including legal expenses) from third parties.
However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits,
the involvement it might have in these matters in the future, or
the potential for future litigation.
Ecolab was incorporated as a Delaware corporation in 1924. In
2016, the Company continued to invest in and build its business,
including the July 2016 acquisition of a 33% minority investment
in Aquatech International LLC ("Aquatech"). Based in Canonsburg,
PA, Aquatech is a global leader in the design and engineering of
complex and comprehensive water treatment solutions that improve
water quality and reduce net water usage. On February 1, 2017, it
acquired Laboratoires Anios ("Anios"), a leading European
manufacturer and marketer of hygiene and disinfection products for
the healthcare, food service, and food and beverage processing
industries.
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Baker" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile
Adjustment Bureau, LLC. The case is titled as Denise Baker, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01723 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 8, 2017).
Mercantile Adjustment is a full service, nationally licensed
collections and accounts receivable management firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
MERCK: July 17 Fosamax, Fosavance Claims Filing Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
HAVE YOU USED FOSAMAX OR FOSAVANCE?
IF YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER HAS USED FOSAMAX OR FOSAVANCE, PLEASE
READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AS IT MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS
Fosamax is a prescription medication for the treatment and
prevention of osteoporosis. Fosavance is a prescription
medication for the treatment of osteoporosis. They are part of a
more general class of drugs known as "bisphosphonates."
A national settlement agreement that settles all litigation in
Canada relating to Fosamax or Fosavance has been reached and has
been approved by the courts.
The Merck Defendants, while not admitting liability, will pay a
sum of $6,375,000.
If you, your spouse or parent, or a deceased person for whom you
are the personal representative took Fosamax or Fosavance and then
experienced osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ") or an atypical femur
fracture, you should immediately review the full legal notice in
this matter to ensure you understand your legal rights.
IMPORTANT DEADLINES
July 17, 2017 Deadline to file a claim
Because of the deadline, you must act without delay.
A copy of the full legal notice can be viewed at
www.fosamaxclassaction.ca, or can be obtained from the Claims
Administrator, who can be reached at 1 (866) 432-5534 or
fosamax@ricepoint.com, or from Class Counsel at 1 (844) 672-5666
or fosamax@mckenzielake.com.
This notice contains a summary of some of the terms of the
Settlement Agreement. If there is a conflict between this notice
and the Settlement Agreement, the terms of the Settlement
Agreement shall prevail.
METTRUM LTD: Faces 3rd Class Action Over Tainted Medical Cannabis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ganjapreneur.com, citing the Globe and Mail reports, reports that
a third class-action lawsuit has been filed in Canada over tainted
medical cannabis sold by Mettrum Ltd. The lawsuits stem from
patients consuming products that might have contained banned
pesticides which allegedly caused them to fall ill.
The new suit is filed on behalf of a Nova Scotia man who claims he
became violently ill after consuming medical cannabis purchased
from Mettrum, which is federally licensed to sell cannabis
products in Canada. The suit follows two others that name Mettrum
and OrganiGram Inc. as defendants, which also claims that
plaintiffs became ill after smoking tainted medical cannabis
products.
In those cases, which involve military veterans, the claimants
allege that they experienced a variety of symptoms, including
trouble breathing, painful rashes, abdominal pain, and nausea and
vomiting, which forced many to seek emergency medical attention.
Scott Wood, a former military policeman who says he was exposed to
the tainted products but has not joined the lawsuits, is leading
an independent investigation into the potentially tainted products
and has obtained evidence from about 100 people who fell ill after
consuming the products.
"These symptoms didn't come out of nowhere. They have to be
caused by something," he said in the report." How would Health
Canada explain so many people with eating [dysfunctions] all of a
sudden, who can't eat?"
Health Canada determined that recalled products were "not likely
to cause any adverse health consequences" but has not commented on
the proposed lawsuits.
All three suits are seeking court certification before moving
forward.
MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Driver Files Wage-and-Hour Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a delivery driver alleges his current employer has not paid
for overtime work and other wage violations.
Ryan Gordon filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on March 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Western Division against Michigan
Logistics Inc., doing business as Diligent Delivery Systems;
California Logistics Inc., doing business as Diligent Delivery
Systems; and Interamerican Motor Corp. alleging violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he has
worked for the defendants since 2006. The plaintiff holds
Michigan Logistics Inc., doing business as Diligent Delivery
Systems; California Logistics Inc., doing business as Diligent
Delivery Systems; and Interamerican Motor Corp. responsible
because the defendants allegedly misclassified the plaintiff as an
independent contractor in order to avoid paying him any overtime
wages, and required drivers to pay for insurance, gas and vehicle
maintenance.
The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks statutory
penalties, damages, liquidated damages, restitution, interest, all
legal fees and any other relief as the court deems just. He is
represented by Jahan C. Sagafi and Relic Sun of Outten & Golden
LLP in San Francisco.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Western Division Case number 2:17-cv-01802-PSG-JPR
NAT'L COMMERCIAL: Class Action Over Dormant Account Fees Mulled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamaica Gleaner reports that St Catherine South MP Fitz Jackson
says he is taking steps to bring a class-action suit against
deposit-taking institutions for breaching the law in charging fees
for dormant accounts.
Mr. Jackson, who has been advocating for stronger banking
regulations and consumer protection, says he's currently meeting
with lawyers to draft the paperwork.
He's arguing that the charging of dormant account fees violates
responsibilities stipulated in the Banking Services Act.
Mr. Jackson says the fee is wrong and unfair to account holders
and deposit-taking institutions should scrap it.
He says other institutions should follow the National Commercial
Bank to immediately suspend the charging of fees for dormant
accounts.
The MP says while he welcomes NCB's decision, the bank should go a
step further and refund the fees.
Finance minister announced that the Government will be setting up
a consumer oversight body for the financial sector.
Shaw said the Government took note of the outcry of Jamaicans
about the high fees and charges by deposit-taking institutions.
He said it believes that a dedicated financial services consumer
protection agency will help to address the concerns of consumers.
The finance minister disclosed that there's approximately $45
billion in dormant accounts held by financial institutions.
He also disclosed that banks made approximately $29 billion from
service charges, transaction fees and commissions last year,
almost 17 per cent more than what was collected in 2015.
NATIONAL CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LETICIA WOODS, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL CREDIT
SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00339-DEJ (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court enter an order certifying a
class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and grant the parties relief from the
local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that
Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this
motion.
To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).
As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=n852Ni03
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Denise L. Morris, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482 8000
Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
dmorris@ademilaw.com
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in "Ubaldi" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
A settlement in principle has been reached to the Ubaldi and
related lawsuits against Navient Corporation, the Company said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.
On March 18, 2011, an education loan borrower filed a putative
class action complaint against SLM Corporation as it existed prior
to the Spin-Off ("Old SLM") in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. The complaint was captioned Tina
M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et. al. The plaintiff brought the
complaint on behalf of a putative class consisting of other
similarly situated California borrowers. The complaint alleged,
among other things, that Old SLM's practice of charging late fees
that were proportional to the amount of missed payments
constituted liquidated damages in violation of California law and
that Old SLM engaged in unfair business practices by charging
daily interest on private educational loans. Plaintiffs
subsequently amended their complaint to include usury claims under
California state law and to seek restitution of late charges and
interest paid by members of the putative class, injunctive relief,
cancellation of all future interest payments, treble damages as
permitted by law, as well as costs and attorneys' fees, among
other relief.
In the fourth quarter of 2016, the parties reached a settlement in
principle that would resolve the Ubaldi matter, as well as the
related lawsuits of Marlene Blyden v. Navient Corporation, et al.
and Jamie Beechum, et al. v. Navient Solutions, Inc.
"While we cannot provide any assurances that we will be able to
finalize the proposed settlement on terms that are acceptable to
the Company, we do not believe that the financial impact of the
final settlement, if any, will be material. The Company agreed to
settle these matters to avoid the burden, expense, risk, and
uncertainty of continued litigation. A reserve has been
established for this matter as of December 31, 2016," the Company
said.
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss Lord Abbett Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint in the case, Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al.
v. Navient Corporation, et al., remains pending, the Company said
in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.
During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain
Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain
Navient securities offerings were sued in three putative
securities class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain
investors in Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt. These three
cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court,
with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff. The caption of
the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al.
v. Navient Corporation, et al. The plaintiffs filed their amended
and consolidated complaint in September 2016.
The Navient defendants intend to vigorously defend against the
allegations in this lawsuit, and filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in November 2016.
Plaintiffs filed an Opposition in December 2016.
On February 6, 2017, a Notice of Request for Oral Argument was
filed by Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., Lord Abbett Bond
Debenture Fund, Inc., Lord Abbett Equity Trust - Lord Abbett
Calibrated Mid Cap Value Fund, Lord Abbett Investment Trust - Lord
Abbett High Yield Fund regarding the Motion to Dismiss.
On February 8, 2017, Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., Lord
Abbett Bond Debenture Fund, Inc., Lord Abbett Equity Trust - Lord
Abbett Calibrated Mid Cap Value Fund, Lord Abbett Investment Trust
- Lord Abbett High Yield Fund filed a response t objections
regarding Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice.
"At this stage in the proceedings, we are unable to anticipate the
timing of resolution or the ultimate impact, if any, that the
legal proceedings may have on the consolidated financial position,
liquidity, results of operations or cash-flows of Navient and its
affiliates. As a result, it is not possible at this time to
estimate a range of potential exposure, if any, for amounts that
may be payable in connection with these matters and reserves have
not been established. It is possible that an adverse ruling or
rulings may have a material adverse impact on the Company," the
Company said.
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Settlement in "Johnson" Suit Has Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the case, Randy Johnson v. Navient Solutions,
Inc. has obtained preliminary court approval, the Company said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.
The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases alleging violations of various state and
federal consumer protection laws. One of these putative class
action suits is Randy Johnson v. Navient Solutions, Inc. On May 4,
2015, Randy Johnson filed a putative class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").
During the fourth quarter of 2016, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement and on December 23, 2016, filed a Motion to
Approve the Class Action Settlement with the Court. The Court
preliminarily approved the settlement on January 26, 2017.
"We have denied all claims asserted against the Company, but
agreed to settle the case to avoid the burden, expense, risk and
uncertainty of continued litigation. A reserve has been
established for this matter as of December 31, 2016," the Company
said.
NCR CORPORATION: Certification of Customer Engineers Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL MEADOWS, on behalf of himself,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. NCR CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06221 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to:
1. order conditional certification of this action as a
representative collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, on behalf of:
"all Customer Engineers who were required to perform off-
the-clock work, were not paid overtime compensation for
time worked in excess of 40 hours in given workweeks, and
who worked for Defendants dating back three (3) years from
the date of notice until the present (FLSA Class)";
2. order court-facilitated notice of this collective action to
the FLSA Class;
3. order Defendants to produce a computer-readable data file
containing the names, addresses, email addresses, telephone
numbers, dates of employment, social security numbers, and
dates of birth of the FLSA Class; and
4. authorize Plaintiffs to send a notice, at their expense, by
U.S. First Class mail and email to all members of the FLSA
Class to inform them of their right to opt-in to this
lawsuit and a reminder notice 15 days before the end of the
opt-in period.
The case involves one overarching common question -- did Plaintiff
and other CEs work before and after their shifts without pay and
in violation of the FLSA. The answer, as confirmed by Defendant's
own policies, Plaintiffs' sworn declarations, and other evidence
is YES. Per Defendant's stated policies Plaintiffs all began work
in the same common way: by checking in with Defendant and/or its
Operations Center via phone or mobile device and "at least thirty
(30) minutes before the start of [their] shift[.]"
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eGZM5TYf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 233 1550
Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
hjenkins@stephanzouras.com
NEW VISION: "Agunbiade" Suit Seeks Payment of Minimum Wage
----------------------------------------------------------
Tolutomi Agunbiade, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. New Vision Pizza, LLC, JM Pizza,
Inc., J & B Pizza, Inc., D & J Pizza, LLC and Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-00029-O (N.D., Tex., March 15, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a delivery driver at their
Domino's Pizza store.
According to the complaint, the Defendant uses a flawed method to
determine reimbursement rates that provide an unreasonably low
rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they
incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to
fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.
Defendant New Vision Pizza, LLC is an Oklahoma limited liability
company maintaining its principal place of business at 115 Falcon
Road, Altus, Oklahoma, 73521, which together with the other
Defendants, has operated a chain of Domino's Pizza stores.
Defendants JM Pizza, Inc., J & B Pizza, Inc. and D & J Pizza, LLC
are Oklahoma corporation maintaining their principal place of
business at 115 Falcon Road, Altus, Oklahoma, 73521, which,
together with the other Defendants, have operated a chain of
Domino's Pizza stores. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Rafuse, Esq.
Rafuse Law Firm, P.C.
710 Lamar, Suite 440
Wichita Falls, TX 76301
Tel: (940) 763-8080
Fax: (940) 763-8070
Email: rafuselawfirm@aol.com
- and -
Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
Paul McInnes LLP
601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64106
Tel: (816) 984-8100
Fax: (816) 984-8101
Email: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com
- and -
Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
Weinhaus & Potashnick
11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
St. Louis, MO 63141
Tel: (314) 997-9150
Fax: (314) 997-9170
Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com
NEWPARK RESOURCES: $0.7MM Gain from Change in Settlement Amount
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newpark Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in the fourth
quarter of 2016, the Company recognized a $0.7 million gain
associated with the change in final settlement amount of the wage
and hour litigation claims.
Davida v. Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC
On June 18, 2014, Jesse Davida, a former employee of Newpark
Drilling Fluids LLC, filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio
Division, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). The plaintiff sought damages and penalties for our
alleged failure to properly classify our field service employees
as "non-exempt" under the FLSA and pay them on an hourly basis
(including overtime). On January 6, 2015, the Court granted the
plaintiff's motion to "conditionally" certify the class of fluid
service technicians that have worked for Newpark Drilling Fluids
over the past three years.
Christiansen v. Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC
On November 11, 2014, Josh Christiansen (represented by the same
counsel as Davida) filed a purported class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, alleging violations of the FLSA. The plaintiff sought
damages and penalties for our alleged failure to properly classify
him as an employee rather than an independent contractor; properly
classify our field service employees as "non-exempt" under the
FLSA; and, pay them on an hourly basis (including overtime) and
sought damages and penalties for our alleged failure to pay him
and the others in the proposed class on an hourly basis (including
overtime). Following the filing of this lawsuit, five additional
plaintiffs joined the proceedings. In March of 2015, the Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification.
Counsel for the plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling and
subsequently filed individual cases for each of the original opt-
in plaintiffs plus two new plaintiffs, leaving a total of eight
separate independent contractor cases.
Additional Individual FLSA cases
In the fourth quarter of 2015, the same counsel representing the
plaintiffs in the Davida and Christiansen-related cases filed two
additional individual FLSA cases on behalf of former fluid service
technician employees. These cases are similar in nature to the
Davida case discussed above.
Resolution of Wage and Hour Litigation
The Company said, "Beginning in November 2015, we engaged in
settlement discussions with counsel for the plaintiffs in the
pending wage and hour litigation cases described. As a result of
the then ongoing settlement negotiations, we recognized a $5.0
million charge in the fourth quarter of 2015 related to the
resolution of these wage and hour litigation claims. Following
mediation in January 2016, the parties executed a settlement
agreement in April 2016 to resolve all of the pending matters,
subject to a number of conditions, including approval by the Court
in the Davida case, and the dismissal of the other FLSA cases
(Christiansen-related lawsuits and individual FLSA cases). The
settlement agreement was approved by the Davida Court on August
19, 2016. Approximately 569 current and former fluid service
technician employees eligible for the settlement were notified of
the pending resolution beginning on August 26, 2016 and given an
opportunity to participate in the settlement. The amount paid to
any eligible individual varied based on a formula that takes into
account the number of workweeks and salary for the individual
during the time period covered by the settlement. Any eligible
individual that elected to participate in the settlement released
all wage and hour claims against us."
"The deadline for submitting claims or opting out was October 25,
2016 with 379 individuals filing claims and no individuals opting
out. The percentage of current or former fluid service technicians
that elected to participate in the settlement represented
approximately 67% of the individuals receiving notice. Individuals
that did not participate in the settlement may retain the right to
file an individual lawsuit against us, subject to any defenses we
may assert. As a result of the settlement agreement, we funded the
$4.5 million settlement amount into the settlement fund in the
second half of 2016. The settlement fund was administered by a
third party who made payments to eligible individuals that elected
to participate in accordance with a formula incorporated into the
settlement agreement. In addition, under the terms of settlement
agreement, settlement funds that remained after all payments were
made to eligible individuals that elected to participate in the
settlement were shared by the participating individuals and us. In
the fourth quarter of 2016, we recognized a $0.7 million gain
associated with the change in final settlement amount of these
wage and hour litigation claims."
NIGERIAN BOTTLING: Consumer Advocacy Foundation Mulls Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tope Alabi, writing for Informationng, reports that the Consumer
Advocacy Foundation of Nigeria are set to file a class-action
lawsuit against the Nigerian Bottling Company if it is established
that an infraction has been committed against consumers of its
beverage products, Fanta and Sprite.
A class-action lawsuit is one in which a group of people with the
same or similar injuries caused by the same product or action sue
the defendant as a group.
The President and Founder, Consumer Advocacy Foundation of
Nigeria, Ms. Sola Salako, disclosed this to one of our
correspondents in Lagos on March 15.
She, however, said that the first step would be to consult the
National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control and
find out how it arrived at the level of benzoic and ascorbic acids
to be used in producing soft drinks for consumption in Nigeria and
why the global standard was different from that applicable in the
country.
Ms. Salako said, "First, we have to ascertain from NAFDAC how they
arrived at a different standard limit of benzoic acid for soft
drinks meant for consumption in Nigeria. What is the condition of
the laboratories that the tests were carried out to determine this
standard? In the last 10 years, how many studies have been carried
out to determine the changes in the lifestyle of consumers?
"The standard limit of benzoic acid in the United Kingdom is 150mg
per kilogramme, while the standard level for Nigeria is 250mg/kg.
That is too high!"
She also suggested that it was possible that when the 250mg/kg
standard was set, people were not consuming as much soft drinks as
they were currently consuming, adding that there might be a need
to review the standard.
Ms. Salako faulted the reaction of the NBC that because NAFDAC had
approved the standard, it was not bothered.
"They should be concerned about the health of their consumers. I
would have expected them to say that in the light of the current
concerns, they would consider reducing the level of the acids,
because there have been a lot of health concerns with the
consumption of soft drinks and sugar these days," she stated.
The President, Consumer Awareness Organisation, Dr. Felicia Monye,
said that although a class action had been part of the law, the
attitude of consumers to such a suit was not encouraging to
consumer advocacy groups.
She said, "Consumers and citizens generally do not opt for that
for reasons best known to them. You will see that if 50 people
agree to come together, after one or two meetings, the number will
just reduce.
"This lukewarm attitude of consumers is responsible for the
problem of consumer protection in Nigeria. They may believe that
they have a right, but when it comes to the enforcement of that
right, they will not show interest," she said.
Meanwhile, NAFDAC and the NBC have appealed the judgment of the
Lagos High Court, which directed the bottler to put a warning on
Fanta and Sprite bottles that taking the products with Vitamin C
was poisonous.
The Director-General, NAFDAC, Mrs. Yetunde Oni; and counsel for
NBC, Mr. Olatunde Busari (SAN), stated this on March 15.
The NAFDAC boss said this just as the Nigerian Medical Association
urged the agency and the Federal Ministry of Health to ensure the
enforcement of the judgment.
The NMA held that NAFDAC failed Nigerians by declaring as fit for
human consumption, drinks discovered through tests in the United
Kingdom as being poisonous when mixed with Vitamin C.
The court had awarded a cost of N2m against NAFDAC. The judgment
was on a suit filed by a Lagos-based businessman, Dr. Emmanuel
Fijabi Adebo, and his company, Fijabi Adebo Holdings Limited,
against NBC Plc and NAFDAC.
Mr. Adebo, had in the suit, asked the court to declare that NBC
was negligent to its consumers by bottling Fanta and Sprite with
excessive levels of benzoic acid and sunset additives.
He also urged the court to order NAFDAC to carry out routine
laboratory tests on all the soft drinks and related products that
NBC was bottling to ascertain their safety for consumption.
But the director-general of NAFDAC said that the agency's lawyer
had filed an appeal against the judgment and a motion to stay its
execution.
"NAFDAC is a national regulatory authority and will react both
scientifically and legally to the matter. Our lawyer has filed an
appeal and a motion to stay execution of action of the judgment
also filed," Oni stated.
Mr. Busari also stated that the NBC had appealed the judgment,
with the beverage company adding in a statement that both drinks
were produced in compliance with national and international food
quality and safety standards in the country.
The statement read in part, "In the judgement delivered on
February 15, 2017, the Lagos High Court dismissed all claims
against the NBC and held that the company had not breached its
duty of care to consumers and that there was no proven case of
negligence against it.
"In the same judgement, the court directed NAFDAC to mandate the
NBC to include a warning on its bottles of Fanta and Sprite that
its contents cannot be taken with Vitamin C as it could be
poisonous. This order was premised on the fact that the products
contain the preservative, benzoic acid. The NBC has since appealed
this order."
According to the company, the levels of benzoic and ascorbic acid
in the drinks are approved by the regulatory agencies in the
country.
It stated, "In the subject case, which dates back to 2007, the UK
authorities confiscated a consignment of our products shipped to
that country by the plaintiff, because their benzoic acid levels
were not within the UK national level although well within the
levels approved by both the national regulators for Nigeria and
the international levels set by CODEX, the joint intergovernmental
body responsible for harmonising food standards globally.
"The UK limits benzoic acid in soft drinks to a maximum of
150mg/kg. Both Fanta and Sprite have benzoic levels of 200mg/kg,
which is lower than the Nigerian regulatory limit of 250mg/kg when
combined with ascorbic acid, and 300mg/kg without ascorbic acid,
and also lower than the 600mg/kg international limit set by CODEX.
"Both benzoic acid and ascorbic acid, also known as Vitamin C, are
ingredients approved by international food safety regulators and
used in many food and beverage products around the world.
"These two ingredients are also used in combination in some of
these products within levels, which may differ from one country to
another as approved by the respective national food and drug
regulators, and in line with the range prescribed by CODEX."
It added, "The permissible ingredient levels set by countries for
their food and beverage products are influenced by a number of
factors such as climate, an example being the UK, a temperate
region, requiring lower preservative levels unlike tropical
countries.
"Given the fact that the benzoic and ascorbic acid levels in Fanta
as well as the benzoic acid level in Sprite produced and sold by
the NBC in Nigeria are in compliance with the levels approved by
all relevant national regulators and the international level set
by CODEX, there is no truth in the report that these products
would become poisonous if consumed alongside Vitamin C."
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Settles Investors' Class Suit for $165-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Davis, writing for Kansas City.com, reports that investors
have agreed to settle a nine-year class-action lawsuit against
Kansas City-based NovaStar Mortgage Inc. and three Wall Street
banks over investment losses tied to subprime mortgages.
The settlement calls for a $165 million cash payment from NovaStar
Mortgage, Royal Bank of Scotland, Wells Fargo and Deutsche Bank,
according to a statement from the investors' attorneys. All four
had been sued after the investors -- including the New Jersey
Carpenters Health Fund and the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement
System -- suffered losses on securities backed by mortgages and
sold to them by NovaStar.
"After years of hard-fought litigation -- which included a
dismissal, an appeal, and even the bankruptcy of some of the
defendants -- thousands of workers will finally get some financial
relief," Steven J. Toll --
stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- managing partner of Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, said in the statement.
The settlement faces approval from the U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of New York.
Novation Companies Inc., its subsidiary NovaStar Mortgage and
other businesses it owns filed for bankruptcy reorganization in
July 2016. The companies submitted a plan of reorganization in
February.
The investors' lawsuit had claimed that NovaStar "hid how it
systematically disregarded its own underwriting guidelines to
increase the number of mortgages it could originate and
incentivized its employees to make non-compliant loans to
extremely risky borrowers," the announcement said.
OAKHURST DAIRY: Truck Drivers' OT Wage Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Cordes, writing for Mainebiz, reports that a federal appeals
court has ruled in favor of five Maine truck drivers seeking to
bring a class-action suit against Oakhurst Dairy over alleged
unpaid overtime.
The drivers, who had been on Oakhurst's payroll from a few years
to more than a decade, claim the Portland-based maker of milk,
cream, cottage cheese and juices failed to pay them for overtime
worked between May 2008 and August 2013, in violation of state and
federal law.
They filed a complaint in 2014 claiming they never received
overtime compensation to which they had been legally entitled for
putting in an average of 12 extra hours a week over the course of
more than five years. The lawsuit points to ambiguous language in
Maine's law, which has since been changed.
Interestingly, the dispute centers on a missing comma from a list
of activities exempt from the overtime law's protection. The
statute listed "packing for shipment or distribution of perishable
goods" as being exempt from the law, raising the question of
whether distribution was a separate activity from shipment.
The drivers argue that while they handled perishable goods and
were not involved in packing, they were not exempt from protection
under the law at the time. But Oakhurst contends that because the
drivers engaged in the distribution of dairy products, a separate
activity from packing, they did fall into the exempt category.
In its 29-page ruling dated March 13, the court sided with the
drivers. Their lawyers say they will now seek to get their class
action certified under Maine law and will seek $10 million in
damages.
"The problem was the way the statute was drafted by the
Legislature was not entirely clear, and we have somewhat jokingly
been referring to this case as the $10 million comma case,"
Jeffrey Young, an attorney with Johnson, Webbert & Young LLP in
Augusta who represents the plaintiffs, told Mainebiz on March 14.
He said while it's too soon to say how many drivers could join the
class action, the maximum would be about 75. "That would include
any driver who delivered for Oakhurst going back roughly six years
from when we filed the suit," he said.
David Webbert, of the same firm, added in a statement that "our
fight for overtime rights has been vindicated by the landmark
court ruling and our firm will continue to bring class actions and
seek penalties against employers who violate these rights."
Jennifer Oldvader -- jennifer.oldvader@ogletree.com
-- an attorney with Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC
in Kansas City, Mo., representing Oakhurst Dairy in the case,
declined to comment when contacted by Mainebiz.
Oakhurst has roots going back to 1921 and was family-owned for
three generations. In 2014 it was acquired by Dairy Farmers of
America Inc., a Kansas City, Mo.-based based cooperative owned by
nearly 14,000 dairy producers in 48 states.
The ruling comes less than a week after Mr. Young and his firm
secured a court victory against Shaw's Supermarkets in an age-
discrimination suit that could have implications for other
employers in Maine.
OLD WILLOW: Faces "Ochoa" Suit Alleging Loss of Property Value
--------------------------------------------------------------
HUGO OCHOA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN BOARD MEMBERS OF OLD WILL FALLS
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION and OLD WILLOW FALLS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case 2017-L-002560 (Ill. Circ., Cook
County, March 13, 2017), alleges that Defendants caused the vents
in the Old Willow Falls Condominium's laundry room to be
closed/sealed. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of
the Defendants, humidity that would otherwise have dissipated
through the laundry room vents has been caused to vent into the
home of Plaintiff, resulting to the loss of value of Plaintiff's
home.
Plaintiff was and is the owner of a condominium located within the
Old Will Falls Condominium Association.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD PERITZ
1121 Lake Cook Road, Suite P
Deerfield, IL 60015
Phone: (847) 562-5880
PASSAGES MALIBU: Faces "Tapia" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
MYRA TAPIA, an individual, individually, on behalf of the general
public, and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PASSAGES
MALIBU PHP, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company;
GRASSHOPPER HOUSE LLC, a California Limited Liability Company;
PARTNERS LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; PAX
PRENTISS, an individual; CHRIS PRENTISS, an individual; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case BC 653867 (Cal. Super.,
County of Los Angeles, March 13, 2017), alleges that PLAINTIFF and
members of the purported PLAINTIFF CLASS are routinely not
provided with rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof as
required by California law.
The suit further alleges that "DEFENDANTS fail to provide
PLAINTIFF and members of the PLAINTIFF CLASS with a paid, ten-
minute, work-free rest period for shifts lasting between two and
six hours. PLAINTIFF and members of the PLAINTIFF CLASS are also
not provided with a second paid rest period for shifts lasting six
to ten hours. Despite knowing that rest periods are not taken,
DEFENDANTS fail to pay the premium compensation for missed or late
rest periods."
DEFENDANTS operate rehabilitation centers. PLAINTIFF worked as a
physical and massage therapist.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle Todd, Esq.
Zachary Ritter, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD
611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (323)208-9171
Fax: (323)693-0822
PATRIOT NATIONAL: Faces Two Shareholder Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Nina Lincoff, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
that at least two class action complaints have been filed against
Fort Lauderdale-based Patriot National.
The suits allege the insurance technology and services company and
President, Chairman and CEO Steve Mariano behaved in a way that
detrimentally affected shareholders, while enriching himself.
New York-based Levi & Korsinsky LLP filed a 207-page amended
complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on
March 10. Los Angeles-based Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announced
on March 15 that it had filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Patriot National declined comment on the litigation. It's common
that after a company experiences a significant drop in price per
share, law firms will file class actions on behalf of investors as
a way to attract more plaintiffs. And Patriot National has
recently experienced a significant drop in price per share.
On March 3, Patriot National filed a Securities and Exchange
Commission filing announcing a $30 million capital infusion and
agreement between the company and another company of which Mariano
is the majority owner. Since then, stock in the Fort Lauderdale
firm has plummeted more than 50 percent.
Stock in Patriot National continued to fall March 15, 2017,
dropping more than 22 percent by midday to reach $2.20 a share.
On March 14, Mr. Marino and other top Patriot National executives
held a conference call with investors to discuss what Mariano
called a "disappointing" fourth quarter.
Patriot National turned down a $475 million acquisition offer last
year, and the Glancy Pongay complaint alleges that a special
committee which was supposed to assess the deal was beholden to
Mariano. "As such, the special committee was operating for the
benefit of Mariano, and not the Company or its shareholders,"
according to the complaint.
The Levi & Korsinsky amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that Mr. Mariano and Patriot National's actions have cost
minority shareholders in the company hundreds of millions of
dollars in damages. The Levi & Korinsky complaint also names
other Patriot National officials and non-affiliated companies as
defendants.
PATRIOT NATIONAL: May 15 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 15
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Patriot National, Inc. securities (PN) from
August 15, 2016 through March 3, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Patriot
National investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Patriot National class action, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1085.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.
The complaint alleges that defendants during the Class Period made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Patriot National special committee was beholden to CEO Steve
Mariano; (2) as such, the special committee was operating for the
benefit of Mariano and not Patriot National or its shareholders;
(3) the special committee did not independently assess the merits
of the Ebix transaction; (4) the special committee was not
exploring strategic alternatives in order to maximize shareholder
value; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about Patriot
National's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May
15, 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, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-
1085.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq.
of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.
PCP FOR LIFE: Nurses Class Certification Sought in "Bunker" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled CRISTY BUNKER, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated employees v. PCP FOR LIFE, PA
and NAJMUDDIN K. KARIMJEE, Case No. 4:16-cv-02573 (S.D. Tex.),
asks the Court to conditionally certify a narrow class of the
Defendants' employees, limited to those who:
(1) were employed as Nurse Practitioners and Physician
Assistants since August 23, 2013 (three years prior to the
filing of this lawsuit), (2) worked in excess of forty (40)
hours per week, and (3) were not paid at the premium rate
for overtime hours worked and/or not paid for all hours
worked during their lunch breaks.
The Defendants failed to comply with the requirement of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to pay premium overtime wages and
wages at the regular rate of pay for lunch hours in which the
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked, the Plaintiff
alleges.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rsho9Kz7
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Wiley, Esq.
Kalandra N. Wheeler, Esq.
ROB WILEY, P.C.
1651 Richmond Avenue
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 337-1333
Facsimile: (713) 337-1334
E-mail: rwiley@robwiley.com
kwheeler@robwiley.com
PENN CREDIT: Faces "Baker" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PennCredit
Corporation. The case is captioned as Denise Baker, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. PennCredit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01731
(S.D.N.Y., Mar. 8, 2017).
Penn Credit was founded in 1987. The company's line of business
includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other
insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
PPG INDUSTRIES: Certification of Del. Retirees Subclass Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PATRICIA L. AMOS, JAMES S. HUTCHISON, SALLY
JONES, GEORGE OWENS, TERRY TAYLOR, JOHN FOSTER, ALEX OLSZYK, JOHN
W. ZUZIK, ARTHUR RAMOZ, ROBERT RATLEFF, JOHN P. DETTY, VIRGINIA
BAKEMAN, WILLIAM BRISON, MARK BRYAN, SHIRLEY M. BRYAN, RICHARD
FISCHER, LINDSAY T. GRANGER, EDWARD LUCENTE, and RICHARD ROSS, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.; PPG INDUSTRIES OHIO, INC.;
PPG RETIREMENT PLANS; GEORGIA GULF CORPORATION; AXIALL
CORPORATION; and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 20, the Defendants, Case No.
2:05-cv-00070-MHW-TPK (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify a subclass consisting of:
"Delaware Retirees who retired after February 16, 1986
together with their spouses, surviving spouses, eligible
dependents, and the surviving spouses of active employees
represented by the UAW who worked at the Delaware facility and
were eligible to retire under the pension plan at the time of
their death".
There are approximately 199 actual retirees, and together with
their dependents and survivors, the number of affected individuals
exceeds 320.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZEFFJc7k
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William T. Payne, Esq.
Ellen Doyle, Esq.
Pamina Ewing, Esq.
Joel Hurt, Esq.
Ruairi McDonnel, Esq.
FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC
Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
429 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburg, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-8400
Facsimile: (412) 281 1007
Email: wpayne@fdpklaw.com
edoyle@fdpklaw.com
pewing@fdpklaw.com
jhurt@fdpklaw.com
rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Timothy F. Cogan, Esq.
Thomas Cunningham, Esq.
Barry A. Macey, Esq.
CASSIDY, COGAN, SHAPELL & VOEGLIN, L.C.
The First State Capitol
1413 Eoff Street
Wheeling, WV 26003
Telephone: (304) 232 8100
Facsimile: (304) 232 8200
E-mail: tfc@walslaw.com
bmacey@maceylaw.com
PPG INDUSTRIES: "Amos" Suit Seeks to Certify Retirees Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PATRICIA L. AMOS, JAMES S. HUTCHISON,
SALLY JONES, GEORGE OWENS, TERRY TAYLOR, JOHN FOSTER, ALEX OLSZYK,
JOHN R. ZUZIK, ARTHUR RAMOZ, ROBERT RATLEFF, JOHN P. DETTY,
VIRGINIA BAKEMAN, WILLIAM BRISON, MARK BRYAN, SHIRLEY M. BRYAN,
RICHARD FISCHER, LINDSAY T. GRANGER, EDWARD LUCENTE, and RICHARD
ROSS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.; PPG INDUSTRIES OHIO, INC.;
PPG RETIREMENT PLANS; GEORGIA GULF CORPORATION; AXIALL
CORPORATION; and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 20, the Defendants, Case No.
2:05-cv-00070-MHW-TPK (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify a class of:
"all collectively bargained past, present, and future retirees
of PPG (as well as the spouses, surviving spouses, and
eligible dependents of these retirees) who:
1. while employed by PPG, were represented by the USW, the
UAW, the IAM, the Alkali Workers, or the ICWUC (the
"Unions");
2. were eligible for retiree medical coverage pursuant to the
terms of collectively bargained agreements and provisions
between any Union and PPG; and
3. retired from, or before final judgment in this litigation
will retire from, the following PPG facilities, on or after
the dates indicated: Barberton (3/1/90); Circleville
(10/1/86); Creighton (2/16/84); Crystal City (2/16/84);
Cumberland (2/16/84); Delaware (2/16/86); Ford City
(2/16/84); Fresno (5/16/84); Greensburg (3/25/84); Lake
Charles (5/15/87); Mt. Zion (6/15/84); Natrium (3/1/87);
and Springdale (11/1/84)as well as surviving spouses of
active employees who have died before final judgment in
this litigation and who at the time of such employees'
death worked at one of the listed facilities (on or after
the dates indicated), were represented by a Union, and were
eligible to retire under the pension plan or with a Social
Security benefit, making their spouse eligible for retiree
medical coverage pursuant to the terms of collectively
bargained agreements and provisions between any Union and
PPG.
Specifically excluded from the Class are employees who were
hired after the dates that PPG and the Unions negotiated
that persons hired at those facilities after those dates
were not entitled to retiree health benefits under an ERISA
governed plan (plus their spouses and beneficiaries) if
they subsequently retired.
For more than 30 years (1969 to August 1, 2001) PPG's union-
represented employees in the proposed Class retired with and
retained the medical benefits and contribution levels that were
set forth pursuant to the collectively bargained agreements (CBAs)
in place at the time they retired. That coverage, negotiated
through collective bargaining, provided for retirees' medical
coverage to continue until they became Medicare-eligible and
beyond, terminating only on their death. As to surviving spouses,
their retiree medical coverage continued until their death, or
alternatively, until their death or remarriage. Retirees' eligible
dependents' coverage continued until the end of their dependency.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RZ7KtCG8
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Timothy F. Cogan, Esq.
Patrick S. Cassidy, Esq.
Thomas Cunningham, Esq.
CASSIDY, COGAN SHAPELL & VOEGELIN, L.C.
The First State Capitol
1413 Eoff Street
Wheeling, WV 26003
Telephone: (304) 232 8100
Facsimile: (304) 232 8200
E-mail: tfc@cmcvlaw.com
- and -
William T. Payne, Esq.
Ellen M. Doyle, Esq.
Pamina Ewing, Esq.
Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC LLC
Pittsburgh North Office
12 Eastern Avenue, Suite 203
Pittsburgh, PA 15215
Telephone: (412) 492 8797
Facsimile: (412) 281 1007
E-mail: wpayne@fdpklaw.com
edoyle@fdpklaw.com
pewing@fdpklaw.com
jhurt@fdpklaw.com
rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com
- and -
Barry A. Macey, Esq.
MACEY, SWANSON & ALLMAN
445 N. Pennsylvania St., Ste. 401
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 637 2345
Facsimile: (317) 637 2369
E-mail: bmacey@maceylaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Charles C. Warner, Esq.
PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
41 South High Street
Columbus, OH 43215
E-mail: cwarner@porterwright.com
- and -
Richard J. Antonelli, Esq.
John A. McCreary, Jr., Esq.
Stephen Antonelli, Esq.
Molly Meacham, Esq.
Two Gateway Center, 6th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
E-mail: rantonelli@babstcalland.com
jmccreary@babstcalland.com
santonelli@babstcalland.com
mmeacham@babstcalland.com
- and -
Joseph J. Torres, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 558 5600
Facsimile: (312) 558 5700
E-mail: jtorres@winston.com
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Judge Okays Autism Coverage Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Maxine Bernstein, writing for OregonLive, reports that Providence
Health Plan has agreed to pay $10,000 each to two families whose
boys were denied coverage for autism therapy and about $638,000 in
attorney fees under a settlement reached in federal court.
Providence Health Plan also agreed to never use the Developmental
Disability Exclusion to deny coverage of behavioral therapy for
autistic children under the settlement.
U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon on March 14 approved the
agreement, reached through mediation with former Oregon Supreme
Court Justice Paul DeMuniz. It ends a long-running class action
case against Providence Health Plan on behalf of children with
autism.
"We are honored to have represented five amazing families whose
steadfast determination to obtain the best treatment for their
children allowed us to help not only them but every other family
in Oregon that needs substance abuse or mental health treatment,"
said attorney Josh Ross, one of two Stoll Berne lawyers who
represented the plaintiffs.
In August 2014, Simon ruled that Providence's denial of coverage
violated both federal and state mental health parity laws. The
statutes require health insurers to cover mental health issues no
different than physical ones.
Brenna Legaard, the mother of one of the plaintiffs in the
Providence case, approved of the agreement.
"I am pleased that in reaching settlement on behalf of the class,
we successfully obtained the full relief sought in our class
claim," she wrote to the court. "I fully support the proposed
settlement and believe that it is fair, adequate and reasonable."
In 2013, Ms. Legaard, her husband and another Portland family sued
on behalf of their young sons, who weren't identified in the
lawsuit beyond their initials. They claimed Providence's denial
of coverage violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Applied behavior analysis is an early, intensive type of
behavioral interaction that helps people with autism perform
social, motor, verbal, behavior and reasoning functions that they
wouldn't otherwise be able to do. While expensive and time-
consuming, it offers a new potential for meaningful treatment. The
New York Times Magazine ran a story last August about ABA
headlined "The Kid Who Beat Autism."
Providence denied coverage to the two families saying ABA was
experimental.
The parents appealed to the insurance division, which convened a
panel of doctors, who sided with the parents that ABA was the
appropriate treatment. Providence then denied coverage under a
different policy exclusion for treatment of developmental
disabilities.
"We argued that Providence unjustly enriched itself by not paying
for the care these children needed and instead invested and sat on
that money," said attorney Keith Dubanevich, co-counsel with Mr.
Ross on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Only one of several claims brought against Providence was filed as
a class action, seeking to stop Providence from using the
developmental disabilities exclusion to deny coverage of the
special autism therapy. That claim did not seek money damages.
In settling the claim, Providence also agreed to pay $10,000 to
the two families who brought the suit on behalf of the class of
plaintiffs impacted, Mr. Ross said. The $10,000 reflects a
"service award," meaning it's not damages but recognizes the "hard
work, commitment and time invested by those two families in
bringing the claim on behalf of the class."
A second claim was brought to recover out-of-pocket expenses that
five families paid for the ABA therapy for their children while
Providence denied coverage. Previously, the court ruled that
these families were entitled to recover virtually all of those
amounts.
"Providence is glad that this lawsuit has been amicably resolved,"
said Gary Walker, spokesman for its Oregon region.
He said the settlement involved cases prior to 2014 and Providence
is covering applied behavioral analysis therapy today.
Disability Rights Oregon filed a friend of the court brief in
support of the plaintiffs' case against Providence.
Disability Rights Oregon, a federally funded, nonprofit law office
charged with protecting the rights of people with disabilities,
was concerned that if Providence's denial of coverage for a
"medically necessary service for children with autism'' was
permitted then other group therapy or drug therapies would be
"arbitrarily limited'' or denied for others suffering mental
illnesses.
PSCU INCORPORATED: "Davis" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Larry Davis, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, Case No. 8:16-cv-2079-T-36JSS
v. PSCU Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-02079-CEH-
JSS (M.D. Fla.), Mr. Larry Davis asks the Court to:
1. certify a collective action for unpaid overtime wages under
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in behalf of class of;
"all current and former hourly customer service
representatives -- both call center based and home based
-- who worked for Defendant at any time during the last
three years";
2. approve the court-supervised notice to the collective
action Class members to be sent via U.S. Mail, e-mail and
an abbreviated notice to be sent via text message; and
3. order Defendant to identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs
by providing names, last known addresses, dates of
employment, job titles, mobile phone numbers, and email
addresses in an electronic and importable format within 10
days of the entry of the order.
According to the Complaint, PSCU's Hourly Home-Based Customer Care
Agents (HBCCAs) -- such as Plaintiff Davis -- and its hourly
Customer Care Agents (CCAs) who work at physical, brick-and-mortar
call center locations -- such as opt-in Ca'Non Jones -- use
multiple computer programs, servers and applications during
performance of their job responsibilities. These programs,
servers and applications are an integral and indispensable part of
their work, as they cannot perform their job without them.
PSCU does not compensate its CSRs for all work performed including
at the beginning of each shift for starting-up and logging-in to
various computer programs and applications; requiring CSRs to
return early from their meal breaks to re-launch applications; and
subsequent to each shift in connection with shutting down and
logging out of various computer programs and applications. PSCU's
illegal compensation policies result in CSRs not being paid for
all time worked, including overtime, in violation of the FLSA.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7FSCd9Qx
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355 0300
E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com
QUALCOMM INC: "Kreuzer" Files Anti-trust Case Over Phone Chipset
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Kreuzer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware
company, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00526, (S.D. Cal., March 16,
2017), seeks to recover damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from
unjust enrichment and violation of the California state consumer
protection statutes, state antitrust and restraint of trade laws,
unfair competition law and 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 that 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:
Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP
550 West C Street, Suite 1750
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
Email: hartley@stuevesiegel.com
lindner@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC
2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
Email: dmillen@fklmlaw.com
bhogan@fklmlaw.com
QUALCOMM INC: Faces "Hallahan" Suit in N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Qualcomm
Incorporated. The case is entitled as Laura Hallahan, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 5:17-cv-01231 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 8, 2017).
Qualcomm is an American multinational semiconductor and
telecommunications equipment company that designs and markets
wireless telecommunications products and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
QUINCY PROPERTY: Brasher Moves to Certify FLSA Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled APRIL R. BRASHER AND
RICHARD M. ORENCIA AND KATHY POWELL individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated as collective representative under
and/or as members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair
Labor Standards Act v. Quincy Property LLC, doing business as
"Welcome Inn" and Welcome Inn Hotel Management, Inc. and BRETT
BURGE, KENNETH LOGAN, QUENTIN KEARNEY, JOE WIMBERLY, as
individuals under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws, Case No. 3:17-cv-
03022-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill.), ask the Court to:
(a) certify the action as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and allow an opt-in period of 90 days;
(b) order the Defendants to produce the full names, aliases,
addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses and last
date(s) of performance of all potential putative class
members, who worked for the Defendants, and the last known
work and home physical and e-mail addresses and phone
numbers of all salaried employees, who worked for the
Defendants from January 28, 2014 to the present, no later
than two weeks after the date of the entry of the Order;
(d) approve a notice based on a form to be submitted by the
parties; and
(e) approve transmittal of the Notice to members of the class
via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and text message.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=R6UhrqQZ
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John C. Ireland, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
636 Spruce Street
South Elgin, IL 60177
Telephone: (630) 464-9675
Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com
The Plaintiffs' counsel discloses that he provided service of the
Motion to:
Kevin W. Doherty, Esq.
DOHERTY & PROGAR LLC
200 West Adams Street, Suite 2220
Chicago, IL 60606-5231
Telephone: (312) 630-9630
Facsimile: (312) 630-9001
E-mail: kwd@doherty-progar.com
RAYONIER INC: Securities Litigation in Discovery Phase
------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation against Rayonier Inc. is now in the
discovery phase, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.
Following the Company's November 10, 2014 earnings release and
filing of the restated interim financial statements for the
quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014 (the
"November 2014 Announcement"), shareholders of the Company filed
five putative class actions against the Company and Paul G.
Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort, David L. Nunes, and H. Edwin Kiker
arising from circumstances described in the November 2014
Announcement, entitled respectively:
-- Sating v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
01395; filed November 12, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida;
-- Keasler v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
01398, filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida;
-- Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Rayonier
Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01403, filed November 13,
2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida;
-- Christie v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
01429, filed November 21, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida; and
-- Brown v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-
08986, initially filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and later transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and
assigned as Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01474.
On January 9, 2015, the five securities actions were consolidated
into one putative class action entitled In re Rayonier Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01395-TJC-JBT, in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. Two shareholders, the Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters'
Pension Trust Fund moved for appointment as lead plaintiff on
January 12, 2015, which was granted on February 25, 2015.
On April 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). In the Consolidated
Complaint, plaintiffs added allegations as to and added as a
defendant N. Lynn Wilson, a former officer of Rayonier. With the
filing of the Consolidated Complaint, David L. Nunes and H. Edwin
Kiker were dropped from the case as defendants.
Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint on May 15, 2015.
After oral argument on Defendants' motions on August 25, 2015, the
Court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint without prejudice,
allowing plaintiffs leave to refile. Plaintiffs filed the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on
September 25, 2015, which continued to assert claims against the
Company, as well as Ms. Wilson and Messrs. Boynton and Vanden
Noort.
Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint
on October 26, 2015. The court denied those motions on May 20,
2016. The case is now in the discovery phase.
At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot determine whether
there is a reasonable likelihood a material loss has been incurred
nor can the range of any such loss be estimated.
On November 26, 2014, December 29, 2014, January 26, 2015,
February 13, 2015, and May 12, 2015, the Company received separate
letters from shareholders requesting that the Company investigate
or pursue derivative claims against certain officers and directors
related to the November 2014 Announcement. Although these demands
do not identify any claims against the Company, the Company has
certain obligations to advance expenses and provide
indemnification to certain current and former officers and
directors of the Company. The Company has also incurred expenses
as a result of costs arising from the investigation of the claims
alleged in the various demands. At this preliminary stage, the
ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted, nor can the
range of potential expenses the Company may incur as a result of
the obligations identified above be estimated.
Rayonier is a timberland real estate investment trust ("REIT")
with assets located in some of the most productive softwood timber
growing regions in the U.S. and New Zealand.
REMINGTON ARMS: Rifle Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that after a federal judge rejected a class action settlement with
Remington Arms Co. due to an "appalling" claims rate, lawyers in
the case scrambled to reach out to more gun owners. They put
together a targeted ad campaign on Facebook and radio that was
estimated to reach 74 percent of class members.
More than a year later, their efforts paid off: The total number
of claims jumped from 2,327 to 22,000. And on March 14, U.S.
District Judge Ortrie Smith in Kansas City, Missouri, gave his
final approval of the deal.
But he still was disappointed in the claims rate. After all, an
estimated 7.5 million class members had guns that might
inadvertently go off without pulling the trigger, risking death,
injuries or property damage.
"While not required by Rule 23, the court is concerned as to why
more claims have not been submitted," he wrote, citing the Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure that governs class actions. "To the
extent class members do not want to participate, the court cannot
force them to do so."
Dismal claims rates, which are the percentage of potential class
members who actually make claims to get compensated under a
settlement, have long been an accepted outcome in many class
actions. Few judges or lawyers have addressed the issue in the
courtroom, and data on claims rates remains sparse.
But that might be changing. In November, the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission subpoenaed eight claims administrators for information
on notice procedures and response rates of class action
settlements. The FTC said the subpoenas are part of its Class
Action Fairness Project, which aims to improve class action
settlements for consumers while making sure lawyers and defendants
aren't benefiting at their expense. This month, the U.S. House of
Representatives passed a class action reform bill that, among many
other things, would require lawyers in a class action settlement
to turn over claims data to the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts and the Federal Judicial Center. Even judges, like Smith,
are starting to ask more questions about why more class members
aren't participating.
"It's taken years for it to bubble up," said Ted Frank, who has
been pushing judges to look at claims rates since 2009, when he
founded the Center for Class Action Fairness, now part of the
Competitive Enterprise Institute. "And as more and more and more
of those examples happen, people are going to recognize that this
is a standard that class action settlements should be held to."
WHY CLAIMS RATES HASN'T BEEN AN ISSUE
Poor claims rates generally aren't a reason for class action
settlements to get rejected. For one thing, claims rates aren't
among the myriad factors judges must consider in approving a
settlement. In his order, Judge Smith cited nearly a dozen other
cases in which judges had approved settlements with similar, if
not worse, claims rates than the Remington case.
But some blame inherent conflicts of interest in class actions
that keep claims rates low. In many cases, the attorney fees are
based on the potential, not actual, amount paid to class members,
and defendants don't want to pay more than they have to. Also,
claims administrators bidding for the work have little incentive
to pitch expensive notice programs that might reach more class
members.
Such conflicts create "a problem which has prompted FTC action to
compel claims-rate transparency, and anti-consumer legislation in
Congress that would eviscerate class actions," Todd Hilsee, a
notice expert at The Hilsee Group in Philadelphia, wrote in a
statement following the ruling in the Remington case. Mr. Hilsee
had filed an amicus brief opposing the settlement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has highlighted
many of these conflicts. In a 2014 ruling in Redman v.
RadioShack, Judge Richard Posner cited a "built-in conflict of
interest in class action suits" that should make judges more
hesitant to approve settlements. And in Pearson v. NBTY, Judge
Posner criticized a "selfish deal" between class counsel and the
defendant that left class members out in the cold.
"I think Judge Posner's opinion in Pearson is very, very
persuasive," said Mr. Frank, who represented an objector in the
case. "And I think judges who look at that opinion and think about
the incentives they're creating for parties creating class actions
settlements would agree you need to look at the claims rate."
A few judges are doing just that. In 2015, a federal judge in
Oakland, California, noted a claims rate of 0.58 percent when
rejecting final approval of a class action settlement involving
alleged brake defects in Nissan vehicles. "Where 6.5 percent of
the payout goes to the class members and 80.2 percent goes to the
attorneys purporting to represent those class members, the tail is
clearly wagging the dog," wrote U.S. District Judge Phyllis
Hamilton, who ultimately granted final approval last year.
This year, another federal judge in Oakland rejected final
approval of a class action settlement involving PlayStation game
consoles after concluding that a claims rate of 11,300 out of
about 10 million "appears quite low."
"Counsel's failure to provide more than argument about the basis
for its estimate of the class size, and thus the claims rate,
leaves the court without any basis of confidence" about the
settlement, wrote U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in a
Jan. 31 order.
In the Remington case, the claims rate issue became particularly
acute because the legal dispute involved public safety. The case
was featured in a CNBC report and an episode of "60 Minutes." The
revised settlement drew objections from attorneys general of 10
states.
In his order, Judge Smith took pains to outline many of the
challenges in reaching out to class members: Remington didn't have
a customer list, and records from the National Rifle Association
of America or state hunting licenses provided unhelpful or
unavailable information. He also said class members might not be
making claims because they aren't worried about the problem or
don't trust the government or attorneys enough to give up their
firearms.
In praising Judge Smith's order, lead plaintiffs' attorney W. Mark
Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston acknowledged the
shortcomings.
"I wish we had full compliance with the opportunity to fix the
triggers," he said in an email. "But we don't. And we won't. Yet
every one we get fixed potentially saves a life or limb."
REPUBLIC OF CROATIA: Status Hearing in "Lalich" Suit on April 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on March 1, 2017, in the case styled
Lizabeth Lalich, et al. v. Republic of Croatia, Case No. 1:16-cv-
05712 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable
Jorge L. Alonso.
The minute entry states that:
-- status hearing was held and continued to April 20, 2017, at
9:30 a.m.; and
-- for the reasons stated on the record, the Plaintiffs'
placeholder motion for class certification is moot.
A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GICgYz1a
RS&H INC: "Jones" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled BRADLEY JONES, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RS&H, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00054-SCB-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
a. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action
consisting of:
"all former employees of RSH who were terminated in the
reduction-in-force on or about June 12, 2015, or within 300
days prior to Jones' EEOC Charge and who were 40 years or
older at the time of termination;
b. requiring that, within 10 days of the Court's order
granting Plaintiff's motion, Defendant produce a computer
-- readable data file to Plaintiff's counsel containing the
names, last-known addresses and telephone numbers, and
dates of employment, of all Putative Class members so that
notice may be issued to all individual putative class
members;
c. approving Plaintiff's notice to Potential Collective Action
Plaintiffs and Consent to Join Collective Action form;
d. authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to mail the notice to all
Putative Class members in accordance with the terms as
requested supra; and
e. permitting the potential plaintiffs to file their Consent
to Join Collective Action forms within 90 days of their
receipt of the Opt-In Notice.
The case is a collective action brought pursuant to the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADE) and the applicable
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). Mr.
Jones filed the action against Defendant to remedy age
discrimination in violation of the ADEA and the Florida Civil
Rights Act of 1992. Jones, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated employees, alleges that RSH engaged in a
pattern and practice of disparate treatment against older workers.
Specifically, Jones contends that RSH utilizes reductions in force
to target older workers for termination based upon age.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cx9vaUKB
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kendra D. Presswood, Esq.
SHANKMAN LEONE, P.A.
707 N. Franklin Street, 5th Floor
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 223 1099
Facsimile: (813) 223 1055
E-mail: kpresswood@shankmanleone.com
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Spying Smart TVs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a class action filed in federal court in Newark claims Samsung
Electronics America Inc. fails to adequately notify users that the
company's Smart TVs listen to their private conversations and
shares them with third parties.
A lack of security precautions in Samsung Smart TVs permits their
use by the CIA as covert listening devices, sending conversations
over the internet to a covert agency server, the suit claims. The
suit cites a release of documents about the agency's techniques by
WikiLeaks that was reported in the New York Times on March 7. The
suit echoes a Feb. 24 Federal Trade Commission complaint filed by
the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which seeks an
investigation of Samsung Smart TVs.
Samsung also uses the set's voice recognition feature for more
mundane reasons, the suit claims. Users' conversations are
transmitted over the internet to a voice-to-text service provider
called Nuance, then sold to marketers, said Michael Berman, the
Long Beach, New York, lawyer who filed the Samsung suit.
Samsung failed to take proper steps to prevent hackers from
gaining access to users' private conversations, the suit claims.
The suit seeks damages for violation of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act and asserts violations of the Cable Communications
Policy Act's subscriber privacy provision, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act and the Children's Online Privacy
Protection Act.
From there, "upon information and belief," Samsung sells the data
to other users that may use it to create consumer profiles of
individuals, Mr. Berman said. For example, if a Smart TV owner is
discussing the purchase of a new car, that information could be
sold to an auto manufacturer, who would then direct advertising to
that person.
Mr. Berman cites a $2.2 million settlement the FTC and New Jersey
reached on Feb. 6 with Vizio, another maker of smart televisions,
over its failure to disclose its monitoring of consumers.
In an announcement of the Vizio settlement, the FTC said, "the
company provided consumers' IP addresses to data aggregators, who
then matched the address with an individual consumer or household.
Vizio's contracts with third parties prohibited the re-
identification of consumers and households by name, but allowed a
host of other personal details -- for example, sex, age, income,
marital status, household size, education, and home ownership.
And Vizio permitted these companies to track and target its
consumers across devices."
Berman believes Samsung's collection of data likewise is seeking
to produce data to sell to others. "There's no reason for that to
be going on other than there being a monetary incentive, because
that's what business does," he said.
The suit asserts violations of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act on
behalf of a nationwide class of owners of Samsung Smart TVs. The
company's headquarters are in Ridgefield Park. The company's
disclosure of its recording and transmission of consumers' private
conversations is not sufficiently prominent, the suit asserts.
And its failure to encrypt customers' private conversations left
it "ripe for theft by outside hackers," the suit claims.
The suit seeks actual and punitive damages, attorney fees and an
injunction against the acts complained of in the suit.
SEAWORLD PARKS: Court Granted Class Certification in "Kratt" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOEY KRATT, and CHRISTINA LANCASTER,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 8:14-cv-03028-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon
Mary S. Scriven entered an order:
1. granting Plaintiffs' motion to strike Defendant's Expert
Report of Allan Metcalf;
2. denying Plaintiffs' motion to strike Defendant's Expert
Report of Joseph J. Egan;
3. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
4. certifying Breach of Contract Class consisting of:
"a. all natural persons who purchased a one-year pass
through Defendant's "EZ Pay" program to one of Defendant's
theme parks located in the States of Florida, Texas,
Virginia, and California; b. who were residents of the
state where the park is located at the time of purchase; c.
who purchased the pass within the applicable statute of
limitations for the respective states; d. who paid for
their one-year pass in less than 12 months; e. who were
charged any additional monthly payments for renewal of the
pass after the one-year pass was paid in full"; and
5. certifying EFTA Subclass consisting of:
"a. all natural persons who purchased a one-year pass
through Defendant's "EZ Pay" program to one of Defendant's
theme parks located in the States of Florida, Texas,
Virginia, and California; b. who were residents of the
state where the park is located at the time of purchase; c.
who paid for their pass using a debit card; d. who paid for
their one-year pass in less than 12 months; e. who were
charged through an electronic fund transfer to their debit
or bank account any additional monthly payments for renewal
of the pass after the one-year pass was paid in full; and
f. such additional monthly payments were charged on or
after the date one year prior to the filing of this
action".
6. appointing Plaintiffs Jason Herman, Joey Kratt, and
Christina Lancaster as the class representatives for the
Breach of Contract Class, and appointing Plaintiff Joey
Kratt as the class representative for the EFTA Subclass;
7. appointing Attorneys Ryan C. Hasanbasic and Paul R. Fowkes
of the Disparti Law Group, and James E. Felman and
Katherine Earle Yanes of Kynes, Markman & Felman, P.A., as
class counsel;
7. directing Plaintiffs to file their proposed class notice
within 14 days of the Order and directing SeaWorld to file
any objections to the proposed class notice within 14 days
thereafter; and
8. directing SeaWorld to produce to Plaintiffs within 30 days
from the date of thes Order the names, last known
addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and Profile
ID for all Breach of Contract class members.
Excluded from the Breach of Contract Class and the EFTA Subclass
are: a. all persons who received full refunds from SeaWorld after
being charged any monthly payments for renewal of the
pass after the one year pass was paid in full; b. all persons who
continued to use their EZ Pay pass after the one-year pass had
expired; c. managers, directors and employees of SeaWorld and
members of their immediate families; d. all agents of SeaWorld;
e. legal counsel for Plaintiffs or SeaWorld and members of
their immediate families; f. all judges assigned to hear any
aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family
members; and g. any class members in the matter of Gargir v.
SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., CTL, in the California
Superior Court, San Diego County (the Gargir Action), who have
specifically released and discharged SeaWorld of any claims they
may have in this case as a result of the class action settlement
approved in the Gargir Action.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2VGrjIUh
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Reed" Suit in E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Securus
Technologies, Inc. The case is entitled as Arthur T. Reed,
Individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Securus Technologies, Inc., George
Lombardi, individually and in his official capacity, Chris Koster,
in his official capacity, Jennifer Joyce, in her official
capacity, and Successors of the foregoing Individuals, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00864-ACL (E.D. Mo., Mar. 9, 2017).
Securus Technologies is an American for-profit prison technology
company based in Dallas, Texas. Founded in 1986 with regional
offices located in Carrollton, Texas, Allen, Texas and Atlanta,
Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
SHIPCOM WIRELESS: Hendrix Wants to Notify Potential Class Members
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled FELICIA HENDRIX, CYNTHIA
BROWN, OMAR MOHAMMAD, CARUM ROGERS, JOHN EBERLE, DOUG SHIPE, BRIAN
QUINN, and MICHELLE YARBOROUGH, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. SHIPCOM WIRELESS, INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-
02714 (S.D. Tex.), file with the Court their motion for notice to
potential class members.
Shipcom violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
individuals employed in the position of Blueprinter (also known as
Inventory Design Specialist, Inventory Location Designer, and
Inventory Room Designer) for hours they worked in excess of 40 in
a single workweek at the applicable overtime premium rate, the
Plaintiffs allege.
The Plaintiffs, who were formerly employed in the position of
Blueprinter, have filed this lawsuit -- a collective action under
the FLSA -- on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages as a
result of Shipcom's policy and practice.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ULh4aEcS
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark G. Lazarz, Esq.
Daryl J. Sinkule, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: mlazarz@eeoc.net
dsinkule@eeoc.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Kerry E. Notestine, Esq.
Karmyn W. McCloud, Esq.
Luke C. MacDowall, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
1301 McKinney Street, Suite 1900
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 652-4748
Facsimile: (713) 553-4599
E-mail: knotestine@littler.com
kwedlow@littler.com
lmacdowall@littler.com
SHIPRA ENTERPRISE: "Pease" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SHANI PEASE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SHIPRA
ENTERPRISE, INC. D/B/A MONTESSORI SCHOOL, the Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-00067 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff moves for conditional
certification of:
"all assistant directors and caregivers employed by Shipra
Enterprise, Inc. at all Montessori Schools in Texas within the
past three years."
Shani Pease filed the lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages
owed to current and former Associate Directors and Caregivers
employed by Defendant, during the past three years. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant misclassified them and all other Assistant
Directors and Caregivers as exempt from the overtime requirements
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jUzomRZM
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
SHORE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
rigger has filed a class-action lawsuit against a Gibson employer
over allegations he is owed unpaid overtime wages.
Magdaleno Bibian Magana, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated filed a complaint on March 6 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Shore
Construction LLC and Kristi Caton alleging that they violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that while
working for defendants, he was not paid one-and-a-half times his
regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. The plaintiff holds Shore Construction LLC and Caton
responsible because the defendants also allegedly did not include
the $50 daily per diem paid to him in computing overtime premium
pay.
The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order
certifying this case as a collective action, award for unpaid
wages, plus interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs and such other general and equitable relief. He is
represented by Roberto Luis Costales, Emily A. Westermeier and
William H. Beaumont of The Costales Law Offices in New Orleans.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 2:17-cv-01896
SHUBERT ORGANIZATION: Faces "Lasser" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Shubert
Organization, Inc. The case is styled as Mark B. Lasser, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
The Shubert Organization, Inc., Dodger Theatricals, LTD., Tribeca
Productions Inc., Evamere Entertainment LLC, and John Does No. 1-
4, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01742 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 8,
2017).
Shubert Organization is a theatrical producing organization and a
major owner of theatres based in Manhattan, New York City. It was
founded by the three Shubert brothers in the late 19th
century.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 465 1188
Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
SMART INTERIORS: Faces "Ochoa" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smart Interiors Inc.
The case is captioned as Mario Ochoa, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Smart Interiors
Inc. doing business as Smart Interiors, and Luis Pacheco, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01335 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 9, 2017).
Smart Interiors operates full service interior design showroom and
custom window treatment in-house workroom.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
SMG HOLDINGS: Court Denied Class Certification in "Guilford" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Andrew J. Guilford entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned OSCAR URBANO ET AL., the Plaintiff v. SMG HOLDINGS, INC.
ET AL., the Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-00603-AG-MRW (C.D. Cal.),
granting Defendants' motions for summary judgment and denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
There are three named plaintiffs in this putative wage-and-hour
class action. Oscar Urbano, Michael Rangel, and Demetha Stroman
are all employees (or former employees) of a venue management
group called SMG. Urbano first filed this lawsuit in California
state court, back in January 2015, alleging that SMG and a related
company called SMG Holdings, Inc., violated a litany of labor
laws. Urbano claims that SMG failed to timely pay wages, failed
to maintain required records, failed to furnish accurate itemized
wage statements, and violated PAGA.
The defendants successfully removed the case to federal court
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(d)(2), and Urbano successfully moved to add Rangel and
Stroman to the mix as named plaintiffs. There are now three
pending motions, accompanied by a voluminous set of documents.
First, the plaintiffs move the Court to certify three classes and
21 sub-classes. Second, SMG moves for partial summary judgment
against Urbano on some of his seemingly meritless claims, and
three, Holdings moves for summary judgment against all of the
plaintiffs on all of their claims.
The Court ordered the parties to be prepared at the December 12,
2016 hearing to discuss how this case can best proceed consistent
with their duty to "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding." Among other things,
this included answering the following questions: What is the
status of named plaintiff Rangel? Have the parties complied with
their meet and confer obligations, and developed open channels of
communication? Have the parties complied with their
discovery obligations? Is there any outstanding discovery, with
respect to named plaintiff Rangel or SMG Holdings, Inc., that
would affect the parties summary judgment arguments? How has the
extensive motion practice affected the class certification
inquiry? Does counsel's class certification motion comply with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11?
But in the oral argument of about 70 minutes, these questions were
not answered.
SMG is a general partnership organized under the laws of Delaware,
with its principal place of business in West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania. SMG manages and operates various stadiums, arenas,
convention centers, and theaters across the country. SMG Holdings,
Inc., is (as the name might suggest) a holding company that was
created to buy and possess the ownership interests in SMG's two
general partners -- SMG Holdings I, LLC (a 50 percent partner) and
SMG Holdings II, LLC (a 50 percent partner).
The named plaintiffs all work or worked for SMG at different
California facilities and in different roles. More specifically,
Urbano worked at the Ontario Convention Center as a maintenance
mechanic and a painter. Rangel apparently worked as a cashier or
salesperson at one of SMG's Stockton facilities. The parties
haven't provided much information about Rangel, since he has
failed to participate in discovery and has effectively abandoned
the litigation. Stroman continues to work as a concessions cashier
at the Long Beach Convention Center and the Aquarium of the
Pacific.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xrcw8ihy
SOLARCITY CORP: Lucero Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOSE ALBINO LUCERO JR., on Behalf of
Himself and all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
SOLARCITY CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-05107-RS (N.D.
Cal.), the Clerk of Court indicated that:
-- the Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in Support of Motion to Exclude the
Declaration, Expert Report and Testimony of Ray Horak
(Redacted), and
-- the Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs Reply In
Further Support of Motion for Class Certification
(Refiled per Order,
shall be submitted without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local
Rule 7-1(b).
Accordingly, the Motion hearing for April 6, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. is
vacated.
The Hon. Richard G. Seeborg held a hearing on March 9, 2017, at
1:30 p.m., to certify these classes and subclasses:
Autodialer Class:
"all individuals in the United States who received one or more
calls on their cellular telephones from SolarCity Corp. from
November 6, 2011 to the date that class notice is
disseminated, where such calls were made through the use of an
automated telephone dialing system";
Autodialer Subclass A:
"all individuals in the United States who received one or
more calls on their cellular telephones from SolarCity
Corp. from November 6, 2011 to the date that class notice
is disseminated, where such calls were made through the use
of an automated telephone dialing system, and for whom
SolarCity Corp. has no LeadID record";
Autodialer Subclass B:
"all individuals in the United States who received one or
more calls on their cellular telephones from SolarCity
Corp. from November 6, 2011 to the date that class notice
is disseminated, where such calls were made through the use
of an automated telephone dialing system, and for whom
SolarCity Corp. has no LeadID record specifically naming
SolarCity Corp";
NDNC Class:
"all individuals registered on the National Do Not Call
Registry whom SolarCity Corp. called more than one time in a
12-month period on their cellular or landline phone where each
call was made more than 30 days after registration";
NDNC Subclass A:
"all individuals registered on the National Do Not Call
Registry whom SolarCity Corp. called more than one time in
a 12-month period on their cellular or landline phone where
each call was made more than 30 days after registration,
and for whom SolarCity Corp. has no LeadID record"; and
NDNC Subclass B:
"all individuals registered on the National Do Not Call
Registry whom SolarCity Corp. called more than one time in
a 12-month period on their cellular or landline phone where
each call was made more than 30 days after registration,
and for whom SolarCity Corp. has no LeadID record
specifically naming SolarCity Corp".
The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Plaintiff as a
class representative, and appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Nathan
& Associates, APC as class counsel.
Lucero alleges that Defendant SolarCity Corp. called him and class
and subclass members using automatic telephone dialing systems
(ATDS or autodialer), without their prior express consent, and
despite the fact that they are registered on the national Do Not
Call ("NDNC") list, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
SolarCity is an "energy company" that sells and leases solar
panels to customers.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qMxUkOIt
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300 4455
Facsimile: (925) 407 2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
scott@bursor.com
jarisohn@bursor.com
- and -
Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
600 W. Broadway, Suite 700
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 272 7014
Facsimile: (619) 330 1819
E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com
SOUTHERN TUBULARS: "Villanueva" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAIME VILLANUEVA on behalf of himself individually, and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHERN TUBULARS
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00789 (S.D. Tex., March
13, 2017), alleges that Defendant does not pay their Vacuum
Installers overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act).
Instead, Southern Tubulars Services, LLC pays its Vacuum
Installers straight time, not time and a half for overtime hours
worked.
Southern Tubulars Services (STS), LLC, was founded in 2014 to
provide OCTG threading and yard services to the oil and gas
industry.
The Plaintiff worked as vacuum installer.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
Houston, TX 77054
Phone: (832) 778-8182
Fax: (832) 778-8353
E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com
SPECTRANETICS CORPORATION: Securities Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
The Spectranetics Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend a securities class action lawsuit.
The Company said, "On August 27, 2015, a person purporting to
represent a class of persons who purchased our securities between
February 19, 2015 and July 23, 2015 filed a lawsuit against us and
certain of our officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that
certain of our public statements concerning our projected revenue
for 2015 were false and misleading. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
monetary damages on behalf of the alleged class, interest, and
attorney's fees and costs of litigation. On March 1, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, including additional
allegations challenging certain statements made by us. The class
period in the amended complaint runs from February 27, 2014 to
July 23, 2015. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
in June 2016, plaintiffs filed their response in July 2016, and we
filed our reply brief in August 2016."
Spectranetics develops, manufactures, markets and distributes
single-use medical devices used in minimally invasive procedures
within the cardiovascular system.
STANDARD INNOVATION: Settles We-Vibe Class Action for $4 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Cormack, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that the
manufacturer of a bluetooth-enabled sex toy has reached a US class
action settlement of almost $4 million, after it was found to be
collecting intimate data about the way purchasers used the
vibrator device.
The class action against sex toy company Standard Innovation
Corporation was brought in the federal court by two anonymous
women in the US last year, in relation to the We-Vibe 4 Plus, a
product advertised as the "No. 1 couples vibrator."
The prime feature of the device allows users to adjust intensity
and vibration patterns using a smartphone linked to the 'We-
Connect' app, enabling couples to "play together even when
[they're] apart".
Internet capabilities of the We-Vibe product line allow devices to
be controlled long distance, for example between two people on
opposite sides of the globe. Individual We-Vibe devices retail in
Australia for between $170 and $300.
However in September last year it was revealed that intimate data
from the device was being regularly sent back to the manufacturer
when in use.
Such data included pattern and intensity levels of vibrations, the
device's temperature, when it was used and for how long, and the
email address of customers registered with the device's app.
Spokesman for Standard Innovation Denny Alexander said the
information was stored to help "improve products and for
diagnostic purposes".
"The data was used only in aggregate, non-identifiable forms," he
told Fairfax Media.
The lawsuit against the manufacturer alleged that it was
"intercepting and monitoring electronic communications between a
user's smartphone and the device, and then collecting and
transmitting this data to servers in Canada," (where the company
is based).
Court documents state that the settlement agreement "achieves the
dual purposes of the suit by providing both significant monetary
compensation and cessation of [Standard Innovation's] allegedly
invasive information collection practices."
As part of the settlement, Standard Innovation was required to
establish two settlement classes: an 'app class,' for those who
used the app and a 'purchaser class,' for those who only purchased
and used the device.
According to court documents, about 300,000 people purchased
Bluetooth-enabled WeVibe products, while around one-third of those
also used the app.
The settlement entitles any person who purchased the vibrator to
claim up to CAD$199, while anyone who actually connected the
device to the app could receive up to CAD$10,000.
However it is expected that purchasers of the device will receive
around $40, while others who also used the app will receive around
$500.
Mr Alexander said the company was pleased it had reached a fair
and reasonable settlement.
"At Standard Innovation we take customer privacy and data security
seriously. In September this year, we responded rapidly to
concerns about app privacy and security," he said.
"We enhanced our privacy notice, increased app security, provided
customers more choice in the data they share, and we continue to
work with leading privacy and security experts to improve the
app."
Mr Alexander confirmed that while the settlement only applied to
customers in the US, the company had made privacy and security
updates on a global scale.
"Prior to September 2016, app users in all territories had the
option of creating an account with their email address. This
option has since been removed from the app."
Standard Innovation has agreed to delete all email addresses
provided via registration, the time and date of use on any device,
vibration intensity levels and patterns, device temperatures and
battery life.
STONEGATE MORTGAGE: "Feinstein" Sues Over Sale to Home Point
------------------------------------------------------------
James Feinstein, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Stonegate Mortgage Corporation,
Richard A. Kraemer, Kevin Bhatt, James Brown, Sam Levinson,
Richard A. Mirro and Scott Mumphrey, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00794 (S.D. Ind., March 15, 2017), seeks to enjoin the Defendants
from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the sale of
Stonegate Mortgage Corporation to Home Point Financial
Corporation; or rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the
sale or any of the terms thereof.
According to the complaint, Defendants issued a Proxy Statement
with the intention of soliciting shareholder support for the
Proposed Merger. Each of the Defendants reviewed and authorized
the dissemination of the Proxy Statement, which fails to provide
critical information regarding, amongst other things: (i)
financial projections of the Company; (ii) information regarding
the confidentiality agreements and (iii) the valuation analyses
performed by Barclays.
Defendant Stonegate is an Ohio corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices at 9190 Priority Way West Drive, Suite
300, Indianapolis, Indiana 46240. Stonegate's common stock traders
on the New York Stock Exchange under symbol "SGM".
Home Point is a New Jersey corporation with its headquarters
located at 1194 Oak Valley Drive, Suite 80, Ann Arbor MI 48108. It
is a national multi-channel mortgage originator and servicer. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason A. Shartzer, Esq.
Shartzer Law Firm, LLC
156 East Market Street, Suite 1000
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Tel: (317) 969-7600
Fax: (317) 969-7650
Email: jshartzer@shartzerlaw.com
- and -
Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 983-9330
Fax: (212) 983-9331
Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
jwilson@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
Monterverde & Associates PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Email: jmonterverde@monteverdelaw.com
TEACHEY PRODUCE: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Hernandez, et al., Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and on all other similarly situated persons v. Debbie Teachey,
Marshall "Mark" Teachey, Michael T. Teachey and Teachey Produce,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-00056-BO (E.D. N.C., March 15,
2017), was filed by the Plaintiffs to seek payment of wages, as
well as for the Defendants' failure to provide water and safe
working conditions pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of North Carolina (OSHANC) and Fair Labor Standard Act.
Plaintiffs were employed in a farming industry.
Defendant Teachey Produce, Inc. is organized under the laws of the
state of North Carolina, for the purpose of, among others,
producing, processing, packing, and/or marketing broccoli,
collards, kale, mustard greens, romaine salad, turnips, turnip
greens, cabbage, corn and other agricultural products within and
without North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert J. Willis, Esq.
Law Office o Robert J. Willis, P.A.
P.O. Box 1269
Raleigh, NC 27602
5. W. Hargett Street, Suite 404
Raleigh, NC 27601
Tel: (919) 821-9031
Fax: (919) 821-1764
Email: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com
TENG FEI: Faces "Lin" Suit in Southern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teng Fei Restaurant
Group Inc. The case is styled as Guangqing Lin and on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Teng
Fei Restaurant Group Inc., doing business as: Tenzan 89 Japanese
Cuisine, and Fei Teng, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01774
(S.D.N.Y., Mar. 9, 2017).
The Defendants operate restaurant in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
TERRAFORM POWER: "Chamblee" Securities Class Action Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
TerraForm Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that proceedings in the
"Chamblee" securities class action remain stayed through March 31,
2017.
On April 4, 2016, a securities class action under federal
securities laws (Chamblee v. TerraForm Power, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-00981-JFM) was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland against the Company and two of
its former officers (one of which was also a director of the
Company) asserting claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf
of a putative class. The Complaint alleges that the defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies, including
with respect to disclosures regarding SunEdison's internal
controls and the Company's reliance on SunEdison.
An amended complaint was filed on September 26, 2016 and a former
officer and director of the Company were added as defendants.
On October 4, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred this matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (SDNY) for consolidated or
coordinated pretrial proceedings.
On December 19, 2016, an initial case management conference was
held in the multidistrict litigation proceedings in the SDNY. The
Court entered an order requiring all parties to the multidistrict
litigation to mediate and entered a partial stay of all
proceedings through March 31, 2017.
The parties attended an initial mediation in February of 2017 and
the Company expects to continue the mediation process for the time
being. The parties filed a status report on the mediation on March
17, 2017.
While the Company cannot predict with certainty the ultimate
resolution of this proceeding, the Company believes each of the
allegations in this complaint are without merit and intends to
contest these allegations vigorously.
TerraForm Power, Inc. ("TerraForm Power") and its subsidiaries
(together with TerraForm Power, the "Company") is a controlled
affiliate of SunEdison, Inc. (together with its consolidated
subsidiaries excluding the Company, "SunEdison"). TerraForm Power
is a holding company and its sole asset is an equity interest in
TerraForm Power, LLC ("Terra LLC"), an owner and operator of
renewable energy facilities that have long-term contractual
arrangements to sell the electricity generated by these facilities
to third parties. The related green energy certificates, ancillary
services and other environmental attributes generated by these
facilities are also sold to third parties. TerraForm Power is the
managing member of Terra LLC, and operates, controls and
consolidates the business affairs of Terra LLC.
TIRE DISCOUNTERS: Certification of Class Sought in "Lindsey" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JUSTIN LINDSEY, et al. v.
TIRE DISCOUNTERS, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-03065-GCS-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), move for certification of this class:
All Tire Discounters Service Managers who were classified as
exempt from overtime, and who worked in Ohio for at least
one workweek at any time since December 8, 2013.
The Plaintiffs also move for their appointment as "class
representatives" and for the appointment of their counsel as class
counsel.
The lawsuit is brought on December 8, 2015, and the Defendant
consented to conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards
Act collective on February 8, 2016.
In discovery, the Defendant produced corporate documents
(including over 40,000 e-mails), identified the members of the
Ohio class, answered interrogatories, and produced company
President James Ward to testify as the corporate representative.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=J7aIwKen
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Susan H. Stern, Esq.
Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
sstern@shavitzlaw.com
pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Drew Legando, Esq.
Jack Landskroner, Esq.
Edward S. Jerse, Esq.
LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 522-9000
Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com
jack@lgmlegal.com
edjerse@lgmlegal.com
TITEFLEX CORP: Settles Maryland Homeowners' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The D.C. law firm, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, on March 16
disclosed that a settlement has been reached with Titeflex Corp.
and Ward Manufacturing, LLC ("Defendants") about allegedly
defective Gastite(R) and Wardflex(R) corrugated stainless steel
gas tubing ("CSST") used to supply natural gas and propane to gas
appliances. The class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit
Court for Montgomery County, Maryland in 2013. The plaintiffs,
owners of two homes in Maryland, allege that CSST as designed is
susceptible to lightning strikes which may cause it to become
energized and perforate causing a gas leak or fire. Defendants
deny these allegations and claim that CSST is not defective. The
Court has not decided who is right.
Who's Included?
The Settlement Class includes persons or entities in the State of
Maryland who, as of March 15, 2017, own a house or other structure
on which Titeflex's Gastite(R) or Ward's Wardflex(R) was installed
after September 5, 2006, or who after September 5, 2006, purchased
a house or other structure in which CSST was installed on or
before September 5, 2006.
What are the Settlement Terms?
All class members who file valid claims will be eligible to have
their CSST inspected by a licensed and qualified electrician. If
after the inspection, a class member's CSST installation is
determined to not meet the applicable specifications for bonding,
the class member may be entitled to receive up to $125 to offset
the cost of repair. Additionally, some class members will be
eligible to receive a payment voucher good for installation of a
lightning protection system. For more details of the Settlement
and how to file a claim, please visit the Settlement website and
review the Detailed Notice and Settlement Agreement.
How Can a Class Member Make a Claim?
Class members can file a claim online by visiting
www.CSSTsettlement.com, by downloading a paper copy of the Claim
Form at the website, or requesting a claim form by calling 1-844-
357-8798.
More information is available at the website:
www.CSSTsettlement.com or by contacting Gary E. Mason, Whitfield
Bryson & Mason LLP at gmason@wbmllp.com or (202) 640-1160.
TODAY'S FRESH: Faces "Anderson" Suit Alleging Cal. Law Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIA ANDERSON, on behalf of the State of California, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. TODAY'S FRESH START, a California
corporation; TODAY'S FRESH START EDUCATIONAL GROUP, a California
corporation; GOLDEN DAY SCHOOLS, INC., a California corporation;
JEANETTE PARKER, as an individual; CLARK PARKER, as an individual;
DOES 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 653934 (Cal. Super.,
County of Los Angeles, March 13, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff was
routinely required to work overtime for which she was not paid;
was routinely denied meal and rest breaks and discouraged from
taking proper meal and rest breaks; routinely required to incur
expenses as part of her job duties but was never reimbursed for
these expenses; was forced to forfeit earned wages including
vacation, paid time off and paid leaves of absence in violation of
the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General.
Today's Fresh Start is a charter school overseen by Compton
Unified School District.
Defendants jointly employed Plaintiff Anderson as non-exempt
"Staff," at different job sites located in the City and County of
Los Angeles.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tina Mehr, Esq.
VISION LEGAL, INC.
4712 E. 2nd Street, Suite 840
Long Beach, CA 90803
Phone: (877) 870-9953
Fax: (877) 348-8509
E-mail: tmehr@visionlegalinc.com
- and -
Travis Hodgkins, Esq.
CIVIL JUSTICE LAW, P.C.
12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (213) 529-0003
Fax: (310)496-0533
E-mail: travis@civiljustice.com
TRANS UNION: "Maximiliano" Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert S. Lustig, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Trans Union, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-01175, (E.D. Pa., March 16, 2017), seeks actual, statutory
and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
attorney's fees and costs and such other relief under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
Trans Union, a national consumer reporting agency based out of
Crum Lynne, Pennsylvania, sells consumer reports/credit reports of
millions of consumers annually to include information about
bankruptcies, civil judgments and tax liens.
On November 21, 2016, Lustig requested and received a copy of his
personal credit report from Trans Union. The said credit report
allegedly contained inaccurate information, including but not
limited to, an outstanding civil judgment lodged against him in
the amount of $209,012.00 taken from the Chester County Records of
Deeds located in West Chester, PA. It also had furnished
Plaintiff's credit report to several of his existing and
prospective creditors after February 27, 2015, including Bank of
America, Merrick Bank and other third parties.
Plaintiff is represented by:
John Soumilas, Esq.
James A. Francis, Esq.
FRANCIS &MAILMAN, P.C.
Land Title Building, Suite 1902
100 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19110
Tel: (215) 735-8600
Fax: (215) 940-8000
Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
UNITED STATES: Crumpacker Moves for Rule 23 Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Crumpacker moves the Court to certify the case entitled Mark
Crumpacker v. Ms. Caroline Ciraolo-Klepper, Mr. Michael Martineau,
Mr. Mark J. Langer, Personally, Comm'r., Internal Revenue, United
States Attorney General, And 2 Unknown-named IRS/DoJ attorneys,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01053-CRC (D.D.C.), as class action pursuant to
Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
"The issues of this case have nationwide importance," Mr.
Crumpacker contends. "The Internal Revenue Service and the
Department of Justice enforce the so-called 'income tax' on a
wide-range of Americans engaged in occupations of common right, by
falsifying IRS records, and knowingly using falsified records," he
alleges.
In light of the reasonable fear articulated by every attorney they
have approached as possible class counsel, (that a vindictive IRS
will retaliate by repeatedly auditing the attorney's practice to
damage him financially, professionally and personally), the
Plaintiff moves the Court to appoint an "independent/special
counsel" of unquestionable integrity to prosecute the case on
behalf of the Class.
The Plaintiff further asks the Court to order the Government to
provide appropriate funding as necessary to ensure full discovery
and complete class representation in this highly unusual case.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AY3OkkEg
The Defendants are represented by:
Loretta Lynch, Esq.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-2000
E-mail: loretta.lynch@usdoj.gov
- and -
Channing D. Phillips, Esq.
U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
E-mail: channing.phillips@usdoj.gov
- and -
Caroline D. Ciraolo-Klepper, Esq.
ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
TAX DIVISION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Room 4603
Washington, DC 20530
E-mail: caroline.d.ciraolo@usdoj.gov
- and -
Ryan O. McMonagle, Esq.
TRIAL ATTORNEY, TAX DIVISION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 227, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20444
E-mail: ryan.mcmonagle@usdoj.gov
UPREACH LLC: "Brittmon" Suit Seeks Payment of Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Latesha Brittmon, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. Upreach LLC,
Melissa Gourley and Beth Hunter, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00171-TSB (S.D. Ohio, March 15, 2017), seeks payment of overtime
for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act and Ohio Minimum Wage Law.
Plaintiff Brittmon worked as a Support Specialist providing
companionship services, domestic services, home care and other in-
home services. Brittmon regularly worked more than 40 hours per
week, but was not paid one and one-half her regular rate for all
hours worked over 40.
Defendant Upreach is a home care staffing agency of direct care
workers for the developmentally disabled in need of assistance.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Jason C. Cox, Esq.
Barkan, Meizlish Handelman, Goodin, DeRose, Wentz, LLP
250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: (614) 221-4221
Fax: (614) 744-2300
Email: rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com
bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
jcox@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Coffman Legal, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Tel: 614-949-1181
Fax: 614-386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
VIP AUTO: Court Certified Class in "Torrezani" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CHARLES TORREZANI and JOSIMAR DESOUZA,
individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. VIP AUTO DETAILING, INC., and GILBERT VOLPONI, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-40009-TSH (D. Mass.), the Hon.
Timothy S. Hillman entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion
for class certification of:
"all individuals who have worked for VIP Auto Detailing, Inc.,
and Gilbert Volponi performing automobile detailing and
cleaning at any time since August 2, 2012, at either of the
Herb Chambers dealerships in Auburn and Millbury,
Massachusetts, and who were not paid overtime compensation
when they worked more than 40 hours in a week".
As to the Rule 23 Certification, on or before March 14 2017, the
Plaintiff shall provide the Court with a proposed class
certification Order defining the class, the class claims, issues,
or defenses, and appointing class counsel under Fed.R.Civ.P.
23(g). The Plaintiffs shall also file a proposed form of notice in
accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2)(B). If Defendants object to
the proposed Order and/or form of notice, they were to file their
own proposed Order/form of notice by March 21, 2017.
As to the FLSA conditional certification, on or before March 14,
2107, the Plaintiff shall file a proposed notice that sets forth
the definition of the group in the collective action, the process
for opting in and the date by which a prospective class member
must opt in and any other relevant information regarding available
legal rights and remedies. If Defendants object to the proposed
form of notice, they shall file their own proposed form of notice
by March 21, 2017.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants for several years
performing vehicle detailing and cleaning at auto dealerships in
Auburn and Millbury, Massachusetts. Plaintiffs typically
worked somewhere between 50 and 60 hours per week and were not
provided with breaks. Plaintiffs were paid on an hourly basis.
Torrezani, for example, was paid $12 per hour. Plaintiffs were not
paid premium or overtime compensation for hours worked in excess
of 40 per week; instead, they were paid the so-called "straight-
time" hourly wage for all hours worked. Moreover, Defendants
failed to accurately record the time worked by employees and did
not issue them paystubs detailing the hours worked and rate of
pay.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xWW87NtB
VISA INC: Certification of Merchants Class Sought in B & R Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled B & R SUPERMARKET, INC., d/b/a MILAM'S
MARKET, a Florida corporation, et al., Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VISA, INC., a
Delaware corporation, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
01150-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order
to:
1. certify a class of:
"merchants who have been unlawfully subjected to the so-
called Liability Shift for the assessment of MasterCard,
Visa, Discover and/or American Express payment card
chargebacks, from October 2015 until the anticompetitive
conduct ceases;
2. appoint Fine Fare, Monsieur Marcel and B & R Supermarket
and Grove Liquors as class representatives; and
3. appoint Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Devine Goodman
Rasco & Watts-FitzGerald LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel.
A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PrymRdfq
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
David W. Mitchell, Esq.
Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
Angel P. Lau, Esq.
Lonnie A. Browne, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: (619) 231 1058
Facsimile: (619) 231 7423
E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com
davidm@rgrdlaw.com
xanb@rgrdlaw.com
cmedici@rgrdlaw.com
alau@rgrdlaw.com
lbrowne@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
John W. Devine, Esq.
Lawrence D. Goodman, Esq.
Robert J. Kuntz, Jr., Esq.
DEVINE GOODMAN RASCO &
WATTS-FITZGERALD, LLP
2800 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 1400
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 374 8200
Facsimile: (305) 374 8208
E-mail: jdevine@devinegoodman.com
lgoodman@devinegoodman.com
rkuntz@devinegoodman.com
VOYA INSURANCE: Faces "Klevos" Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Voya Insurance and
Annuity Company. The case is captioned as Larry D. Klevos,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Voya Insurance and Annuity Company and Voya
Financial, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00492-JAH-WVG
(S.D. Cal., Mar. 9, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge John
A. Houston.
Voya Insurance, a stock life insurance company, provides financial
products and services in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy J Tatro, Esq.
Tatro & Zamoyski, LLP
12760 High Bluff Drive, Suite 210
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 244 5032
Facsimile: (858) 847 0032
E-mail: tim@tatrozamoyski.com
WACKENHUT: Seeks Review of California Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Tabitha Fleming, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
Civil Justice Association of California has filed a letter in
support of review of the case of Lubin v. Wackenhut, which is
poised to set legal standards for class action certifications
regarding employer liability and meal and rest breaks.
The case, which was filed by an employee at Wackenhut, claims that
employees at the company were required to remain on-duty during
legally required meal and rest breaks, and additionally charged
the company with providing inadequate wage statements. The
plaintiffs alleged both actions were in violation of California
labor laws.
Initially the trial court certified the case as a class action,
but decertified the class after Wackenhut filed a motion citing
the United States Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
v. Dukes. On appeal, the class was recertified by the 2nd
Appellate District Court of California, and sent back to the lower
court for consideration.
CJAC's letter asks the California Supreme Court to review the case
in its amicus letter, listing two main reasons that the case
warrants review by the state's highest court.
According to the letter, the court should determine whether the
decision to certify a class must be based on evidence of the
number of individuals that were allegedly harmed, or if the
determination should be made based on an analysis of possible
class members.
"The appellate opinion 'cherry picked' from a body of conflicting
opinions about whether and when to certify a class action,
choosing only those that emphasize the importance of 'theory' over
'facts' (as shown by the 'evidence') in making that
determination," writes the CJAC,
"Thus, the appellate opinion stands for the proposition that
'evidence' numerous employees . . . were not members of the class
to whom petitioner could owe liability, should be subordinated to
plaintiffs' 'theory' that they somehow . . . might be able to
prove liability by common evidence."
Additionally, CJAC asks the court to clarify the holding of Duran
v. U.S. Bank in the Wackenhut case and similar lawsuits.
"There is plainly a sharp difference of view here between the
litigants and the trial and appellate courts as to what Duran
means for the scope and application of statistical sampling and
extrapolation for determining the 'nature of work'
exception/defense in meal and rest break violation claims,"
explains the letter.
"For the aforementioned reasons, and others CJAC will seek to
provide should review be granted, we urge the court to order
review and iron out the anomalies this opinion presents,"
concludes the eight-page amicus curiae letter signed by Fred J.
Hiestand, general counsel for the CJAC.
WELLMARK INC: Iowa High Court Flips Ruling in Chiropractors' Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lawson, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the Iowa
Supreme Court has reversed a district court decision that would
have allowed a collective of similarly situated chiropractors to
sue a health insurance company over alleged antitrust violations
in the state.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the district court case Mueller v.
Wellmark Inc. cited the Iowa Competition Act, according to court
documents. A civil complaint was filed in 2007 by Steven Mueller,
a chiropractor who alleged Wellmark breached a contract in a
$17,376 billing dispute.
Several other chiropractors joined Mueller in May 2008 to engage
in legal action against Wellmark. This included filing an amended
petition for claims in a class of Iowa chiropractors who "have
billed for services provided to patients enrolled in Wellmark
health insurance plans."
According to the decision, the plaintiffs alleged Wellmark
"discriminatorily fixed prices for services performed by
chiropractors at rates lower than those paid to medical doctors
and doctors of osteopathic medicine. Their amended petition
alleged violations of Iowa insurance regulatory statutes, the Iowa
Competition Law (Iowa Code chapter 553), and a national class-
action settlement. The district court, without certifying this
case as a class action, granted Wellmark's motions to dismiss and
for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed."
This led to the case being heard by the court for a first time in
2009. The court reversed the district court's summary judgment
dismissing antitrust claims against Wellmark based on the state-
action exemption in Iowa Code section 553.6(4) (2009).
The court remanded the case for further proceedings on plaintiffs'
claims under the Iowa Competition Act. Meanwhile, the collective
of chiropractors commenced an administrative action in the Iowa
Insurance Division to litigate the violations of the insurance
regulatory statutes.
"On Dec. 31, 2012, Wellmark moved to dismiss or stay the civil
action pending the insurance commissioner's decision in the
related administrative action," the Supreme Court's opinion
states. The commissioner decided in favor of Wellmark, who had
argued the commissioner had primary jurisdiction "because the
regulator was better suited to analyze the complex antitrust
allegations and any effects on insurance markets," the opinion
states.
There was resistance from the plaintiffs who argued that there
wasn't a need to await the commissioner's decision because the
amended petition alleged "per se" violations. As such, there was
no requirement for the regulator's analysis of the market.
According to the court, under a per se violation, an agreement is
"so plainly anti-competitive that no elaborate study of the
industry is needed to establish . . . illegality." A contrasting
rule-of-reason claim "requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that a
particular arrangement 'is in fact unreasonable and anti-
competitive before it will be found unlawful.'"
The ruling means that proper procedures were not followed and the
district court was found to have erred in allowing the case to
proceed without class certification in the first place, according
to the Supreme Court.
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Fowler" Suit in California State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank
N.A. The case is titled as FOWLER, VANA INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the PLAINTIFF, v. WELLS FARGO
BANK N.A, the DEFENDANT, Case No CGC 17 557482. (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Mar. 9, 2017).
Wells Fargo is a provider of banking, mortgage, investing, credit
card, and insurance services.[BN]
WEST FLAGLER: "Herrera" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Frank Herrera, and other similarly
situated employees non-exempt facilities assistant manager, the
Plaintiff, v. West Flagler Associates, LTD, doing business as
Magic City Casino, a Florida Limited Partnership; SW FL
Enterprises, Inc.; BHH, Inc., Miami, FL, Individually; and Hecht
Investments, LTD, Individually, the Defendants, , Case No. 16-
30215 CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit of
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-20872-CMA to the proceeding.
West Flagler owns and operates Magic City Casino. The company
offers slot machine gaming, poker, jackpot, diamond lotto, and
gambling.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Howard Pollock, Esq.
FAIRLAW FIRM
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 230 4884
Facsimile: (305) 230 4844
E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Allison Gluvna Folk, Esq.
Jennifer A. Schwartz, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500
2 S. Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 577 7600
Facsimile: (305) 373 4466
E-mail: allison.folk@jacksonlewis.com
Jennifer.Schwartz@jacksonlewis.com
WEST FLORIDA ELECTRIC: Court Dismisses Members' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hamilton II, Esq. -- larry.hamilton@hklaw.com --
Laura Beard Renstrom, Esq. -- laura.renstrom@hklaw.com --
Christina Schwing, Esq. -- christina.schwing@hklaw.com -- of
Holland & Knight LLP, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that a
federal court's interpretation of an excess revenue statute could
bring an end to many capital credit lawsuits brought by current
and former members of rural electric cooperatives challenging the
distribution of patronage capital and excess revenues.
Many rural electric cooperatives around the country find
themselves defending allegations that they have violated state
statutes that require the cooperatives to distribute excess
revenues. These statutes typically provide a formula for
calculating excess revenues and then provide the methods for
distributing those revenues, if indeed, the cooperatives have any.
Numerous states, from Montana to Florida, have adopted these
statutes fashioned after a model statute promulgated by the Rural
Electrification Administration (REA), an agency of the federal
government established in 1935.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on
March 7, 2017, interpreted Florida Statute Section 425.21 -- one
example of an excess revenue statute -- in the case of Robert
Simmons and Jan Simmons v. West Florida Electric Cooperative
Association, Inc., Case No. 5:15cv321-RH/GRJ. Section 425.21
provides '"unless otherwise determined by a vote of the members,"
excess revenues -- determined under a formula set out in the
statute -- must be "distributed" to a cooperative's members "as
patronage refunds."'
Many electric cooperatives have similar bylaw provisions requiring
cooperatives to allocate their net margins by crediting members'
individual capital credit accounts rather than paying members in
cash. These bylaws and the votes adopting them were key to the
court's order dismissing the class action lawsuit. The court held
that the Florida statute requirement that a cooperative distribute
excess revenues "unless otherwise determined by a vote of the
members" was satisfied when members voted to adopt bylaws.
Specifically, when the members voted on a bylaw provision
authorizing the capital-account procedure, this constituted a
"vote of the members" that eliminated any requirement to make a
cash distribution, even if the statute otherwise would have
required such a distribution.
The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments concerning the timing
and type of vote required by the statute. The plaintiffs claimed
that "the requirement for a cash distribution may be overridden
only by a stand-alone vote of the members -- that adopting a bylaw
is not enough. And the plaintiffs say there must be a vote each
year -- that a vote cannot remain in effect indefinitely or until
there is a contrary vote." However, the court pointed out that
"nothing in the statute supports these assertions. The best
reading of the statute's plain terms is that members may vote to
dispense with any requirement to distribute excess revenues. That
is what the members did when they adopted the bylaws."
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and entered a judgment
in favor of West Florida Electric Cooperative. This significant
victory comes on the heels of a string of favorable rulings for
electric cooperatives in the Sunshine State.
Recent Rulings
In Brunson v. Gulf Coast Electric Cooperative, Inc., Case No.
2015-CA-000063, Florida's Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Court in
Gulf County on Oct. 7, 2016, granted in part a motion to dismiss
filed by Gulf Coast Electric Cooperative Inc., dismissing the
plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment and violations of
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).
Several weeks later, on Oct. 26, in Zittin v. Clay Electric
Cooperative, Inc., Case No. 01-2015-CA-004166, Florida's Eighth
Judicial Circuit Court in Alachua County granted in part a motion
to dismiss, concluding that causes of action accruing prior to
four years from the complaint being filed were barred by the
statute of limitations.
One month later, on Nov. 28, in Rozes v. Lee County Electric
Cooperative, Inc., Case No. 16-CA-001127, Florida's Twentieth
Judicial Circuit Court in Lee County granted in part a motion to
dismiss filed by Lee County Electric Cooperative Inc., dismissing
the plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment and violations of
FDUTPA and concluding the plaintiff could not recover any claims
arising from the cooperative's alleged failure to distribute
excess revenues for years prior to the applicable four- or five-
year statute of limitations. This victory follows closely upon
the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit, in which the authors submitted an amicus brief on behalf
of the Florida Electric Cooperatives Association, affirming the
dismissal of an Alabama lawsuit on the basis that the allocation
of patronage capital satisfied the requirement of the Alabama
statute to "distribute" excess revenues.
Cooperatives Takeaways
In light of this recent decision, electric cooperatives operating
in states that require distribution of excess revenues -- "unless
otherwise determined by a vote of the members" -- should analyze
their bylaws and ensure proper voting of provisions dealing with
distribution of net margins.
WILLIAMS & WILLIAMS: Gorss Suit Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS & WILLIAMS
MARKETING SERVICES, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, WILLIAMS,
WILLIAMS & MCKISSICK, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company,
WLLIAMS, WILLIAMS & MCKISSICK AUCTION SERVICES, LLC, an Oklahoma
limited liability company, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00399 (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an
order:
a. taking motion for class certification 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; and
b. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gLkxphN5
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
85 Miles Avenue
White Plaines, NY 10606
Telephone: (914) 358 5345
Facsimile: (212) 571 0284
E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com
- and -
Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
ANDERSON & WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368 1500
Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
XPO LOGISTICS: Pregent's Motion to Certify Class Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Gary Feinerman entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
Alexis Pregent, et al., the Plaintiff, v. XPO Logistics, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00993 (N.D. Ill.), denying a motion to
certify class without prejudice for failure to comply with Local
Rule 5.3(b).
According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 8, 2017,
if Plaintiffs refile the motion, they shall not purport to set a
date for any response to the motion.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Xdcctriy
* 2016 Securities Class Action Settlement Payouts Hit Record High
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meaghan Kilroy, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
the number of court-approved federal securities class-action
settlements rose to 85 in 2016, the highest level since 2010 and
up from 80 in 2015, said a report released on March 15 by
Cornerstone Research.
The record number of 270 case filings in 2016 contributed to the
increase. That, combined with four consecutive year-over-year
increases in the number of case filings, could drive up the number
of settlements in future years, Cornerstone said.
The report also found that the percentage of settlements with
public pension funds as the lead plaintiffs rose to 41% in 2016,
up from 39% in 2015.
Regarding settlement amounts, the average settlement in 2016 was
$70.5 million in 2016, up from $38.4 million in 2015, driven in
part by 10 "mega settlements" in 2016 of more than $100 million,
the highest number of mega settlements in the last 10 years, and
accounting for 81% of all settlement dollars in 2016, Cornerstone
said.
In total, courts approved nearly $6 billion in settlements in
2016, the second highest amount in the last 10 years, and up from
$3.1 billion in 2015.
"While the spike in total settlement value in 2016 was largely
driven by growth in very large cases, an increase in the median
settlement amount also indicates a shift for more typical
securities class actions," said Laura E. Simmons, senior adviser
at Cornerstone Research and co-author of the report, in a news
release. "Overall, defendant firms in 2016 were substantially
larger compared to 2015, and we know from our research that larger
firms are generally associated with higher settlement amounts."
The median settlement amount in 2016 was $8.6 million, up from
$6.1 million in 2015
Among the report's other findings:
-- Average estimated damages rose to $4.8 billion in 2016, the
second highest level in 10 years and up from $4.4 billion in 2015.
Median settlements as a percentage of estimated damages was 2.5%
in 2016, the highest percentage since 2011 and up from 1.8% in
2015.
-- The median disclosure dollar loss in 2016 was $135 million,
up from $90 million in 2015.
-- Two of the 10 mega settlements in 2016 exceeded $1 billion,
making it the first year since 2006 with more than one settlement
of that size.
-- 2016 had the highest percentage of cases settling within two
years of being filed since 2006.
* Recent Patronage Fund Class Action Rulings Favor Cooperatives
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor Keith Emanuel, Esq. -- keithemanuel@eversheds-
sutherland.com -- Tracey Ledbetter, Esq. --
traceyledbetter@eversheds-sutherland.com -- and
James Orr, Esq., of Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, in an article
for JDSupra, report that cooperatives facing patronage capital
lawsuits have recently enjoyed a series of favorable court
opinions. Over the past few months, the Eleventh Circuit and
state and federal courts in Florida have all dismissed claims for
patronage capital refunds, while another action in Alabama was
recently dismissed by plaintiffs.
Eleventh Circuit Rules on Removal and Merits of Claims
In a published opinion in Caver v. Central Alabama Electric
Cooperative (Jan. 12, 2017), the Eleventh Circuit held that the
federal government's lending of capital to, and regulation of, the
defendant electric cooperative's operations brought the
cooperative under the federal officer removal statute. The
appellate court therefore concluded the case was properly brought
before a federal court. It further held that distributions of
excess revenues to the cooperative's members by making credits to
their capital accounts instead of cash payments satisfied Alabama
law, and affirmed dismissal of the cooperative's motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim.
Central Alabama Electric Cooperative (CAEC) is a rural electric
cooperative that receives substantial loans from the federal
government through the United States Department of Agriculture
Rural Utilities Service (RUS). The plaintiffs alleged that CAEC's
manner of distributing "excess revenues" to its members violated
an Alabama statute governing electric cooperatives' refunds of
patronage capital. Plaintiffs filed suit on their own behalf and
on behalf of a putative class.
CAEC removed the case to federal court under the federal officer
removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a)(1). That statute allows
for removal when a suit is brought against "any officer (or any
person acting under that officer) of the United States . . . for
or relating to any act under color of such office." Because CAEC
was not itself a federal officer or agency, the court examined
whether it had met a three-pronged test for application of the
statute. CAEC was required to show: (1) that it acted under a
federal officer; (2) that it performed the actions for which it
was being sued under color of federal office; and (3) that it
raised a colorable federal defense. After reviewing each prong,
the court concluded that CAEC had properly removed the lawsuit.
In addition to the removal ruling, the Eleventh Circuit went on to
address the merits of CAEC's motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs
had contended that CAEC must annually distribute patronage refunds
in the form of cash payments to its members because Ala. Code Sec.
37-6-20 provides that excess revenues "shall be distributed by the
cooperative to its members as, and in the manner, provided in the
bylaws, either as patronage refunds . . . or by way of general
rate reductions, or by combination of such methods." Plaintiffs
argued that this language constituted a plain statutory
requirement that excess revenues be distributed through refund
rather than a credit to their capital accounts.
The court, however, noted that the statute nowhere required either
a cash or an annual payment; indeed, instead of defining the term
"patronage refund," the statute plainly stated that distributions
were to be made in the manner provided in the bylaws. And CAEC's
bylaws provided for distribution of excess revenues through a
system of credits to each member's capital account. For further
support, the Eleventh Circuit cited two Alabama appellate tax
decisions that had thoroughly examined the use of capital account
credits under section 37-6-20 and allowed them. The court
therefore affirmed the district court's grant of the CAEC's motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Patronage Capital Claims in State Courts and District Courts
Florida state and federal courts have also recently dismissed
claims based on failure to distribute patronage capital as desired
by plaintiffs.
In Brunson v. Gulf Coast Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Oct. 10,
2016), a Florida circuit court rejected claims based on a
cooperative's failure to refund patronage capital in cash to its
members. Under Section 425.21 of the Florida Statutes, certain
excess revenues of a cooperative must be distributed by the
cooperative to its members as patronage refunds. The bylaws of
Gulf Coast Electric Cooperative (Gulf Coast) provided that all
amounts in excess of operating costs and expenses were furnished
by the cooperative's patrons as capital and would be credited to a
capital account for each patron. Upon dissolution or liquidation
of the cooperative, outstanding capital credits would be retired.
The plaintiff asserted that Gulf Coast had failed for decades to
refund such excess revenues to the cooperative's members. She
therefore brought claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, violation of the state's deceptive and unfair trade
practices act, and declaratory and injunctive relief.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment
and unfair trade practices with prejudice. As to the claim for
unjust enrichment, the court found it to be undisputed that Gulf
Coast's bylaws were a written, express contract between the
cooperative and its members. Because the validity of the contract
was undisputed, the plaintiff could not bring a claim for unjust
enrichment, even in the alternative. As to the deceptive and
unfair trade practices act claims, the court found that they were
flawed for three reasons. First, the state trade practices
statute exempts conduct permitted or required by law, such as
calculating and refunding to members excess revenues pursuant to
Fla. Stat. Sec. 425.21. Second, the court concluded that a
cooperative's distribution or allocation of excess revenues to its
shareholders did not constitute "trade or commerce." Finally, the
court noted that the facts underlying the trade practices claim
were the same as those underlying the breach of contract claim,
and a plaintiff "cannot transform a mere breach of contract claim
into a claim of unfair or deceptive conduct."
Following a hearing at which the court orally ruled on these
claims, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her remaining claims
for breach of contract and declaratory relief and filed a notice
of appeal. Recently, however, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
the entire action with prejudice.
In another case, Simmons v. West Florida Electric Cooperative
Association, Inc. (Mar. 7, 2017), the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida also dismissed an action
seeking refunds of patronage capital. In that case, the court had
previously denied a motion to remand, finding that West Florida
Electric Cooperative Association (WFECA) had properly removed the
action under the federal officer removal statute. As in the case
discussed above, plaintiffs alleged that the cooperative had
failed to distribute excess revenues as required under Fla. Stat.
Sec. 425.21, because WFECA allocated accumulated earnings to each
member's capital account.
The court noted that the case turned on "a single, straightforward
question": whether the facts alleged in the complaint, if true,
would violate the patronage capital statute. It analyzed the text
of the statute's requirement to "distribute" excess revenues as a
"refund" and acknowledged the Eleventh Circuit's analysis in the
Caver case, discussed above. But ultimately, the court noted that
the members had voted to adopt a bylaw authorizing the allocation
of patronage capital to members' capital accounts. Because the
statute only required distribution of excess revenues "unless
otherwise determined by a vote of the members," the vote to adopt
the bylaws eliminated any requirement to make a cash distribution-
-even assuming a cash distribution was otherwise required under
the statute. Further, plaintiffs did not allege that WFECA made
any untrue or deceptive statements about the cooperative's prices
or patronage capital policy. The court therefore granted the
cooperative's motion to dismiss.
Finally, in another patronage capital claim filed in Alabama state
court, plaintiffs recently voluntarily dismissed their claims
against Tombigbee Cooperative, Inc.
*********
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 * * *