/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170329.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 63 Headlines 1-800 CONTACTS: "Nance" Sues Over Deceptive Contact Lenses Prices A. F. HAUSER: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in LifeSpan Med Suit ABM ONSITE: Faces "Miles" Suit in C.D. California ACADEKIDS PRE-SCHOOL: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay AIR METHODS: "Stephen" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to Colorado ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Certification of Catholic Inmates Class Sought ALLIED INTERSTATE: "Schafer" Suit Seeks Certification of Class AMAZON.COM LLC: "Morales" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to C.D. Cal. AMERICAN MEDICAL: Class Certification Bid Tentatively Denied AMTRUST FINANCIAL: "Sachetti" Sues Over Share Price Drop ANNELLIE'S CAR: "Williams" Sues Over Unpaid OT, Missed Breaks ANNEXMED BILLING: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed APPLE-METRO INC: Faces "Ghee" Suit in E.D. New York ARBY'S RESTAURANT: "Weiss" Sues Over Credit Card Data Breach ASHLEY FURNITURE: "Atchison" Suit Moved to C.D. California BALTEC MARINE: "Grasso" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. Federal Court BARCO INC: "Perez" Seeks Overtime Pay, Rest Period Premium BASF CATALYSTS: "Williams" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to N.D. Ohio BEHRINGER HARVARD: Judge Won't Impose Injunction in "Wilner" Suit BEST FOOD: "Zhou" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class BIOAMBER INC: Faces "Chu" Suit Over Securities Act Violations BREX INC: "Reed" Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Off-the-Clock Work CARRIBBEAN CRUISE: Class Settlement in "Aranda" Has Final OK CEB INC: "Gordon" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Gartner CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: "Krebs" Suit Seeks Certification of Class CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal from Approval of Class Settlement Junked CITIGROUP INC: Oct. 18 Final Approval Hearing Set CITIGROUP INC: Motion to Dismiss NYPL Class Suit Pending CITIGROUP INC: Appeal in "Allen" Class Suit Remains Pending CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against "Baker" Class Suit CITIGROUP INC: April 13 Hearing on "Beland" Case Settlement CITIGROUP INC: Court Dismissed in Part "Sullivan" Class Suit CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against Frontpoint Asian Suit CITIGROUP INC: Still Faces Suit Over SSA Bond Market CLAYTON WILLIAMS: "Sobel" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal CODE REBEL: Rosen, Pomerantz Named Co-Lead Counsel in "Springer" COMENITY BANK: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls COMPUTER SCIENCES: Bid to Withdraw Class Certification Granted CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Class Certification Sought in "Gill" Suit CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Blanga" Suit in E.D. New York COLLEGIATE HOUSING: Faces "Dearman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Arcuri" Suit in E.D. New York CURADEN AG: "Lyngaas" Suit Seeks Certification of Class CVS HEALTH: "Boss" Sues Over Securities and Exchange Act Breach CWC OF MIAMI: "Matos" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay DJM ADVISORY: O.P. Schuman TCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla. DOORDASH INC: Faces "Angell" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation E. I. DU PONT: Amended Class Certification Motion Due April 30 EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL: Court OKs Notice to Former Nurses ELLIOT BAY: FDCPA Plaintiff Must Show Cause re Jurisdiction EMERCHANTBROKER.COM: Faces "Morgan" Suit in W.D. Virginia EVO PAYMENTS: New Beginnings Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia EXEL INC: "Harris" Suit Seeks Class Certification FCA US: Faces "Rothe" Suit in S.D. Georgia FIRST PREMIER: Faces "Brandon" Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls FLOWERS FOODS: Court Limits Distributor Opt-in Class FORD MOTOR: 2016 Shelby GT350 Owners Sue Over Defects FTD COMPANIES: "Winograd" Sues Over Share Price Drop GEICO GENERAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Chiropractor's Suit GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Class Certification Bid Denied in "Waters" Suit GLOBAL TEL: Loses Bid to Arbitrate Inmate-Phone Calling Suit GOLDEN STATE PHONE: "Padron" Parties Drop Class Certification Bid GREENSIDE CORP: Court Approves Former Workers' Class Settlement HAYTI, MO: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Hamilton" Suit HUB GROUP: Awaits Court Decision in "Robles" Class Action HUB GROUP: "Adame" Class Suit in California Underway HUB GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Lubinski" Suit Pending INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Currier" Securities Class Suit in NY JOYCE STEEL: Crane Operators Class Certification Sough in "Keith" JT GROUP: Spennetta Suit Seeks Certification Classes KAYABA INDUSTRY: Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Granted in Part KEANE FRAC: "Meals" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class KITOV PHARMA: "Zulch" Sues Over Share Price Drop KP RECOVERY: Faces "Lugo" Suit in New Jersey Federal Court LAMI PRODUCTS: Vaughn Seeks Certification of Merchandisers Class LEXINGTON LAW: "Rosales" Files Suit Over TCPA, FCRA Breach LIBERTY LIFE: Class Settlement in "Bush" Has Final Approval LIFECARE SOLUTIONS: "Navarro" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls MAGNA CHEK: Class Certification Bid Denied in Intersol Suit MAGNUM HUNTER: Sagacity Suit Moved to E.D. Okla. Federal Court MCKINNON & HAMILTON: Court Granted Joint Class Certification Bid MDL 1720: Citigroup Still Faces Interchange Fee Litigation MDL 2262: LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Suit Underway MDL 2673: Citigroup Still Faces Suit over Treasury Securities MDL 2704: Citigroup Still Faces Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Suit MTAG SERVICES: Connecticut Judge Narrows Claims in "Weldon" Suit MEAD JOHNSON: "Steinberg" Sues Over Sale to Benckiser Group MEMORIALCARE: Faces "Cortez" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL: Faces "Pace" Suit in W.D. Wash. METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: "Zimmer" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal METROPOLITAN STEEL: "Kenvil" Seeks Trust Funds for Contract Job MIDLAND CREDIT: "Reynolds" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. Federal Court MIDWEST MOVING: Hearing on Class Certification Continued to May 9 MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces "Dellisola" Suit Over Alipay Merger MORGAN GROUP: Faces "Bobiak" Suit Over FLSA Violation MORGAN PROPERTIES: "Zehm" Suit Moved to N.J. Federal Court MRS BPO: Faces "Estevez" Suit in Eastern District of New York MY PILLOW INC: Stamm Sues Over Fraudulent Product Promo NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Battersby" Suit in E.D. New York NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Class Action Waiver Not Discharged in Ch. 7 NCB MANAGEMENT: Faces "Howard" Suit in Florida Middle District NEAL TRUCKING: Settlement Bid in "Poisson" Taken Under Submission NEVADA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Family's Suit vs. NDVS NEW ORLEANS, LA: Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice NEXT CLEANERS: Faces "Dey" Suit in Southern District of New York NICOLET RESTAURANT: Meyers Appeals Ruling to Supreme Court NIMBLE STORAGE: "Parshall" Sues Over Sale to Hewlett Packard O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Certification of Two Classes Sought OCWEN LOAN: Court Partially Grants Bid to Dismiss FCRA Suit OLYMPUS INSURANCE: "Warren" Suit Moved M.D. Fla. Federal Court OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Faces "Lobosco" Suit in E.D. New York PENNSYLVANIA: "Murphy" Suit Filed Against Disciplinary Counsel PENNYMAC CORP: "McPherson" Seeks Unpaid OT Pay, Missed Breaks PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Lewis" Suit in E.D. New York RASH CURTIS: "Vidrio" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Calls REMINGTON ARMS: Court Granted Certification of Class & Subclasses REXALL SUNDOWN: "Dube" Sues Over Gummie Products' False Ad RUSHMORE LOAN: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Deferred SANDOZ INC: Rochester Drug Sues Over Overpriced Amitryptyline SANTA BARBARA, CA: Faces "Byrne" Suit in C.D. California SANTA BARBARA, CA: Brislane Seeks to Certify Inmates Class SENTRY CREDIT: Faces "Riccio" Suit in New Jersey SEVERN MANAGEMENT: "Phillpotts" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium SIRIUS XM: Faces "Buchanan" Suit over TCPA Violations SKF USA: Certification of Direct Purchaser Class Sought SMX LLC: Former Delivery Driver's Suit Remanded to State Court SPECTRUM SOFTWARE: Class Certification Sought in Spennetta Suit SPORTS WAREHOUSE: "McDuffee" Suit Moved to S.D. California STARBOARD GROUP: Faces "Bennett" Suit in S.D. Florida STELLAR RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Sought STUDEBT: "Roe" Disputes Vague Background Check SUNTRUST BANKS: "Bickerstaff" Class Suit Remains Pending SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Underway in Company Stock Class Action SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in Mutual Funds Class Action Underway SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Underway in "Brown et al" Suit SUNTRUST BANKS: Parties in "Thurmond" Reached Settlement SUNTRUST BANKS: Settlement in "Felix" Class Suit Approved SWEET HOME: "Jackson" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification T.T.K.M. INC: "Dalbey" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA TELEMUNDO NETWORK: "Merchan" Sues For Overtime Pay, Retaliation TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Faces "Cuevas" Suit Over Almondmilk Beverage TOTAL HOMECARE: "Spurlock" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class TRANS UNION: Faces "Morris" Suit in S.D. California TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: "Vance" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Joseph" Suit in E.D. New York UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Rojas" Seeks to Certify Uber Driver Class UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Benchocron" Suit in E.D.N.Y. UNITED PARCEL: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Anfeldt" Suit UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Bushell" Suit in S.D. New York US AIRWAYS: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Angeles-Lastimosa Suit VIKING CLIENT: Faces "Broderick" Suit in New Jersey VISA INC: B&R Supermarket Seeks to Certify Merchants Class VIZIO INC: Faces "Queenan" Suit in C.D. California WALTER INVESTMENT: Faces "Bonomi" Securities Class Suit in Fla. WELLS FARGO: Court Denied Class Certification in "Torres" Suit WEN MEI: "Zhang" Suit Seeks Certification of Class WESTBRIDGE FLORIDA: "Barzydlo" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA WILLIAM LAROQUE: "Santos" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay WOODGRAIN MILLWORK: Faces "Cuik" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wage YAHOO! INC: Faces "Talukder" Securities Class Action ZIVIZI INC: Faces "MacMinn" Suit in Utah ********* 1-800 CONTACTS: "Nance" Sues Over Deceptive Contact Lenses Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tyler Nance, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00178, (E.D. Ark., March 22, 2017), seeks to recover damages, including treble damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees and injunctive relief resulting from restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act and the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Defendant 1-800 Contacts is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 66 East Wadsworth Park Drive, Draper, Utah 84020. It sells contact lenses and related products over the internet and by telephone throughout the United States, including the State of Arkansas. 1-800 Contacts allegedly entered into bidding agreements with search engine companies that did not display the prices, products and services offered by its competitors in the market for online sales of contact lenses, thus limiting price and competition. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. Joseph Henry Bates, Esq. Justin Craig, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 West 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 Email: jcraig@cbplaw.com rpulliam@cbplaw.com hbates@cbplaw.com - and - Steven L. Bloch, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP One Tower Bridge 100 Front Street, Suite 1235 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 834-7506 Facsimile: (610) 834-7509 Email: sbloch@baileyglasser.com - and - James L. Kauffman, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 Email: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com A. F. HAUSER: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in LifeSpan Med Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Sheila M. Finnegan entered an order in the lawsuit styled Lifespan Medical Associates, LLC, Plaintiff, v. A. F. Hauser, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07772 (N.D. Ill), denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 20, 2017, No appearance on the motion is required. The motion acknowledges that it is being filed at this time only to prevent the plaintiff from being "picked off" by an attractive settlement offer. The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), obviates the need for such prophylactic motions. See also Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 786-87 (7th Cir. 2015). The pending motion for class certification is therefore dismissed without prejudice to its refiling when the plaintiff is prepared to substantively brief the motion or in accordance with a future scheduling order entered by the Court. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=j1eU7ti9 ABM ONSITE: Faces "Miles" Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABM Onsite Services - West, Inc. The case is captioned as Larry Miles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABM ONSITE SERVICES - WEST, INC., CSS Building Services, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, CSS Building Services-NASA Division LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, ABM Industries Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00451 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 14, 2017). ABM offers reliable facility services and building maintenance services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. ACADEKIDS PRE-SCHOOL: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Belkis Sanchez, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Acadekids Pre-School and Learning Center Corp., Nellys Petrone Sanabria, Maidelis Pazo, Defendant, Case No. 1:17- cv-21023, (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests and costs for overtime work for which they are entitled to under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed as a teacher at Acadekids from about 2009 until February 28, 2017. Defendants failed to keep any time records relating to Plaintiff's individual overtime hours, says the complaint. Defendants also required Plaintiff to attend mandatory staff training meetings and graduations after work hours without overtime pay. Belkis Sanchez is a pro se plaintiff. AIR METHODS: "Stephen" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Jenny Lee Stephens, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Air Methods Corporation and Rocky Mountain, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01659-JEO, was transferred from the Northern District of Alabama (Southern), to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00667-RBJ to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge R. Brooke Jackson. Air Methods Corporation is an American publicly owned helicopter operator. The Domestic Air Medical Division provides emergency medical services to 100,000 patients every year, and serves 48 states and Haiti.[BN] ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Certification of Catholic Inmates Class Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled MARCO GARCIA, JOSHUA MACKIN, and EUGENE LALLOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DAVID GLADIEUX, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00109-RLM-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of: "all individuals held at the Allen County Jail between March 2015 and March 2017 practicing the Catholic faith who have been forbidden from engaging in Catholic communal worship and/or have been forbidden from keeping an article of Catholic religious devotion." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Kl5jNiIV The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Frank, Esq. Christopher C. Myers, Esq. CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES 809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400 Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307 Telephone: (260) 424 0600 Facsimile: (260) 424 0712 E-mail: dfrank@myers-law.com ALLIED INTERSTATE: "Schafer" Suit Seeks Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled LISA J. SCHAFER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC, LVNV FUNDING LLC, and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES L.P., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00233 (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "all persons in Michigan who received a collection letter, that was sent during a time period from March 14, 2016, to March 14, 2017, where the debt sought to be collected was in default for more than six years". The Plaintiff asks the Court for an expedited ruling tentatively granting class certification in an effort to protect this matter as continuing as a class action in light of the Sixth Circuit's holding in Mey v. N. Am. Bancard, LLC, 655 F. App'x 332 (6th Cir. 2016) (unpublished), stating "if a lead plaintiff's claims are moot, any corresponding class claims may not proceed unless a motion for class certification was already pending (and perhaps also fully briefed) at the time that the lead plaintiff's individual claims became moot." Id. at 334 (emphasis added) (citing Carroll v. United Compucred Collections, Inc., 399 F.3d 620, 625 (6th Cir. 2005); Brunet v. City of Columbus, 1 F.3d 390, 399-400 (6th Cir. 1993)). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=R0aOkTLE The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis C. Warner, Esq. WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 350 S. Northwest HWY., Ste. 300 Park Ridge, IL 60068 Telephone: (847) 701 5290 E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal - and - B. Thomas Golden, Esq. GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 2186 West Main Street, P.O. Box 9 Lowell, MI 49331 Telephone: (616) 897 2900 E-mail: btg@bthomasgolden.com AMAZON.COM LLC: "Morales" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled CARLOS MORALES, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM LLC., a Delaware corporation; PEACH, INC. DBA ACTION MESSENGER SERVICE, a California corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-06462, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 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- 01981-ODW-JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have misclassified him and similarly situtated individuals as independent contractors, failed to provide them with meal periods, failed to provide them with rest periods, failed to pay them for all hours worked, failed to pay premium wages for unprovided meal and/or rest periods, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements, and failed to timely pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment. Amazon.com LLC was founded in 1994 and is based in Hebron, Kentucky. Amazon.com LLC operates as a subsidiary of Amazon.com Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (31 0) 888 7771 Facsimile: (31 0) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com AMERICAN MEDICAL: Class Certification Bid Tentatively Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned ARMANDO CALDERA, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16- cv-00381-CBM-AJW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall entered an order: 1. tentatively denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification and taking the motion under submission; 2. denying Plaintiff's application to seal and issuing written order; and 3. directing Parties to meet and confer as to the pretrial conference and jury trial dates and file their stipulation as stated on the record. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kYRqzCt1 The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C 9171 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (424) 285 6006 The Defendant is represented by: Sean P. Flynn, Esq. Musick Peeler & Garrett LLP One Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 629 7600 Facsimile: (213) 624 1376 AMTRUST FINANCIAL: "Sachetti" Sues Over Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------- John Sachetti, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amtrust Financial Services, Inc., Barry D. Zyskind, and Ronald E. Pipoly, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 02001, (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2017), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses in this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees and other costs and disbursements and such other relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. AmTrust underwrites and provides property and casualty insurance products, including workers' compensation, commercial automobile, general liability and extended service and warranty coverage in the United States and internationally. On March 16, 2017, AmTrust disclosed that its board of directors had determined that the Company's previously issued consolidated financial statements for 2014 and 2015 should be restated and should no longer be relied upon as well as its earnings and press releases and similar communications, to the extent that they relate to the periods covered by current financial statements released February 27, 2017. On this news, shares of Amtrust fell from $21.61, the closing price on March 15, 2017, to close at $17.58 on March 16, 2017, representing a 18.7% decline in the value of the Company's common stock. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James S. Notis, Esq. Meagan A. Farmer, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 905-0509 Fax: (212) 905-0508 Email: jnotis@gardylaw.com mfarmer@gardylaw.com - and - Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Bradley J. Vettraino BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 398-5600 Fax: (617) 507-6020 Email: Jeff@blockesq.com Bradley@blockesq.com ANNELLIE'S CAR: "Williams" Sues Over Unpaid OT, Missed Breaks ------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Williams, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff(s), v. Annellie's Car Wash LLC and Rene L. Moreno, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60577, (S.D. Fla., March 21, 2017), seeks to recover from Defendants regular wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant provides car wash services in Broward County where Williams worked as a non-exempt tipped car wash employee, approximately from March 01, 2015 to December 01, 2016. He always worked more than 40 hours every week and denied any bona fide lunch periods. Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ANNEXMED BILLING: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned BLUE RIDGE PODIATRY ASSOCIATES, P.A., a North Carolina corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. ANNEXMED BILLING SERVICES INC., a New York corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00078-MR-DLH (D.N.C.), Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, (3) from whom Defendants did not obtain "prior express invitation or permission" to send fax advertisements, or (4) with whom Defendants did not have an established business relationship, and/or (5) which did not display a proper opt-out notice"; 2. appointing Plaintiff as the class representative; 3. appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. The Plaintiff will file its memorandum after Rule 23 discovery has been completed. The parties need to meet and confer and propose a Rule 23 discovery schedule with this Court. Plaintiff respectfully asks a status conference with the Court as soon as practicable. 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=4RiXNdcY The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad McGowan, Esq. McGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER 1539 Health Care Drive Rock Hill, SC 29732 Telephone: (803) 327 7800 Facsimile: (803) 324 1483 - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: 847 368 1500 Facsimile: 847 368 1501 APPLE-METRO INC: Faces "Ghee" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple-Metro, Inc. The case is captioned as Kendall Ghee and Yang Shen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Apple-Metro, Inc., a New York corporation; 42nd APPLE, LLC, doing business as Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar, a New York corporation; Broadway Apple, LLC, doing business as Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar, a New York corporation, Case No. 1:17- cv-01554 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 20, 2017). Apple-Metro Inc. is the New York Metropolitan Area franchisee for Applebee's (TM) Neighborhood Grill and Bar.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. ARBY'S RESTAURANT: "Weiss" Sues Over Credit Card Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Jacqueline Weiss and Joseph Weiss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Arby's Restaurant Group (ARG), Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01035 (N.D. Ga., March 22, 2017) seeks appropriate monetary relief, including actual damages; restitution and disgorgement; an injunction against ARG requiring it to implement and maintain adequate security measures; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses; and such other and further relief resulting from negligence, breach of implied contract, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, ARG's restaurant system consists of over 3,300 restaurants worldwide most of which accept credit or debit cards. ARG collects customer data related to those cards including the cardholder name, account number, expiration date, card verification value and PIN data for debit cards. ARG stores the Customer Data in its POS system and transmits this information to a third party for completion of the payment. Plaintiffs purchased food at an ARG corporate store located at 3206 Berlin Turnpike, Newington, CT 06111, with a joint Fidelity Visa credit card which was swiped through an ARG point-of-sale payment device. The complaint says ARG failed to secure and safeguard its customers' credit and debit card numbers and other payment card data and other personally identifiable information when in October 2016, computer hackers, using malware, accessed the point-of-sale systems at approximately 1,000 ARG corporate restaurant locations to gain access to such data. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Evangelista, Esq. David J. Worley, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC 8100A Roswell Road, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30350 Phone: (404) 205-8400 Fax: (404)205-8395 Email: jim@ewlawllc.com david@ewlawllc.com - and - Robert W. Killorin, Esq. Benton Woods Drive Atlanta, GA 30342 Tel: (404) 847-0617 Email: rwk@bellsouth.net - and - Stuart J. Guber, Esq. Timothy J. Peter, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Phone: (215) 277-5770 Fax: (215) 277-5771 Email: sguber@faruqilaw.com tpeter@faruqilaw.com ASHLEY FURNITURE: "Atchison" Suit Moved to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Alan Atchison, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc.; Does 1-100; and Ashley Distribution Services, Ltd., sued herein erroneously as Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., Case No. CIV DS1702285, was removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-00528-JGB-SP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal.[BN] Ashley Furniture is an American home furnishings manufacturer and retailer, headquartered in Arcadia, Wisconsin. The company is owned by father and son team Ron and Todd Wanek.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Thomas Mara, Esq. Jamie K Serb, Esq. William David Turley, Esq. TURLEY AND MARA LAW FRIM APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234 2833 Facsimile: (619) 234 4048 E-mail: dmara@turleylawfirm.com jserb@turleylawfirm.com bturley@turleylawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Christina Cila, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553 0308 Facsimile: (310) 553 5583 E-mail: ccila@littler.com - and - John Kevin Lilly, Esq. James E Hart, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553 0308 Facsimile: (310) 553 5583 E-mail: klilly@littler.com jhart@littler.com BALTEC MARINE: "Grasso" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Luis Grasso, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Baltec Marine LLC, Case No. 17-004063-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-21058- KMM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Chief Judge K. Michael Moore. Baltec Marine is the industry's leading single-source contractor for new building and refitting of cruise and commercial accommodations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Alberto Ilmari Manca, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Two South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 577 7600 Facsimile: (305) 373 4466 E-mail: Albert.Manca@jacksonlewis.com - and - David E. Block, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 2 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 3500 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131-1802 Telephone: (305) 577 7600 Facsimile: 373 4466 E-mail: blockd@jacksonlewis.com BARCO INC: "Perez" Seeks Overtime Pay, Rest Period Premium ---------------------------------------------------------- Ivan Perez, individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees and the general public, Plaintiff, v. Barco, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00601, (E.D. Cal., March 21, 2017), seeks damages and restitution, equal to unpaid overtime wages and other due wages, unpaid meal and rest premiums, penalties owed, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, including expert fees, and such other injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Wage and Hour Laws and the California Business and Professions Code. Defendant designs and develops networked visualization products for the entertainment, enterprise and healthcare markets. It offers products including displays, monitors, projectors, work stations, video walls, 3D sound, image processing, and others. Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a field service engineer. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Rebekah L. Bailey, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 Email: bailey@nka.com - and - Daniel S. Brome, Esq. 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 Email: dbrome@nka.com BASF CATALYSTS: "Williams" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to N.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Kimberlee Williams, individually, as personal representative of the Estate of Charles L. Williams, deceased on behalf of said estate and as representative of others similarily situated; Nancy Pease, individually, as personal representative of the Estate of Willilam Clark deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of others similarily situated; Marilyn L. Holley, as personal representative of the estate of Kathryn Darnell, deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of other similarly situated; Donna Ware, individually, as personal representative of the Estate of Ralph Ware, deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of others similarly situated; and Donnette Wengerd, individually, as personal representative of the Estate of Jennifer Graham, deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of others similarly situated; Rosanne Chernick, individually, as personal representative of the Estate of Steven Chernick, deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BASF Catalysts LLC; Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP; Cahill Gordon & Reindel; Thomas D. Halket; Arthur A. Dornbusch, II; Glenn Hemstock; Howard G. Sloane also known as Peter Sloane; Ira J. Dembrow; Scott A. Martin; John Doe Business Entities; John Doe Lawyers 1-500; John Doe 1-500; and 3rd Pty Defendant, Bevan & Associates LPA, Inc., Case No. 11cv1754, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-mc-00015-CAB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Christopher A. Boyko. BASF Catalysts develops and produces environmental and process catalysts for customers worldwide. Its products include adsorbents.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher M. Placitella, Esq. Michael Coren, Esq. COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH - RED BANK 127 Maple Avenue Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 747 9003 Facsimile: (732) 747 9004 E-mail: cplacitella@cprlaw.com mcoren@cprlaw.com - and - David S. Blatt, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 - and - Jared Placitella, Esq. 127 Maple Ave. Red Bank, NJ 07701 - and - Jeffrey M. Pollock Building 3 997 Lennox Drive Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 - and - John K. Villa, Esq. Williams & Connolly 725 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434 5117 The Defendants are represented by: John R. Mitchell, Esq. THOMPSON HINE 3900 Key Center 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114-1291 Telephone: (216) 566 5847 Facsimile: (216) 566 5800 E-mail: john.mitchell@thompsonhine.com - and - Matthew D. Ridings, Esq. THOMPSON HINE - CLEVELAND 3900 Key Tower 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 566 5500 Facsimile: (216) 566 5800 E-mail: matt.ridings@thompsonhine.com - and - Peter A. Farrell, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 - and - Craig Demareski, Esq. Marc D. Haefner, Esq. Robert E. Ryan, Esq. CONNELL FOLEY LLP 85 Livingston Ave. Roseland, NJ 07068 - and - Eric Tunis, Esq. GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS 99 Wood Avenue South Iselin, NJ 08830 Telephone: (732) 476 2676 Facsimile: (732) 475 2677 - and - John A. Boyle, Esq. Kevin Marino, Esq. MARINO TORTORELLA & BOYLE PC 437 Southern Blvd. Chatham, NJ 07928 - and - Brendan E. Little, Esq. LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP 800 Third Ave. New York, NY 10022 BEHRINGER HARVARD: Judge Won't Impose Injunction in "Wilner" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction in the case styled JANE WILNER, TRUDO LETSCHERT, ROBERT RUDNICK, and RUSSELL SCHMEISER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BEHRINGER HARVARD CORDILLERA, LLC, BEHRINGER HARVARD HOLDINGS, LLC, ROBERT M. BEHRINGER, and MICHAEL D. COHEN, Defendants. CSMN INVESTMENTS, LLC and CCG MANAGEMENT, LLC, Intervenors, Civil Action No. 16-cv- 02999-RBJ (D. Colo.). Plaintiffs are four of the homeowners at Cordillera, a resort residential community in Eagle County Colorado, and are members of the Cordillera Property Owners Association (CPOA). Plaintiffs describe the Lodge as a central amenity to home ownership in Cordillera. However, the Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Cordillera provides that no persons, including members of the CPOA, have a right to use the Lodge; that access to it may be restricted or terminated by its owner; and, indeed, that the Lodge may be sold or closed. In 2007 Behringer Harvard Cordillera, LLC (BHC) purchased the Lodge for approximately $36.5 million but from the outset of BHC's ownership, the Lodge was not profitable. In 2008, the Lodge had a net operating loss of approximately $2.8 million on total income of approximately $5.9 million. In 2009 BHC formulated a plan that it hoped would turn things around. As a part of the plan BHC proposed an amendment to the Planned Unit Development that governed the uses permitted on the property on which the Lodge sits or referred to as the Lodge Parcel as well as the uses permitted on an adjacent parcel referred to as the Village Parcel. Since it was considered to be a major change in the way the two parcels could potentially be used, approval was required both from the County and the CPOA. Those approvals were obtained, and the new uses were authorized by what has been referred to as the Eleventh Amendment to the Planned Unit Development. The effect of the amendment was that authorized uses of the Lodge Parcel now included, in addition to its historic use as a lodge and spa, some 33 other possible uses. One of the newly authorized uses was for Medical Offices/Facilities, limited to clinic and outpatient facilities for non-critical care, including, without limitation, for outpatient plastic surgery and other cosmetic procedures. The amendment would bring the two parcels together into one unit which would then permit all the uses authorized for the Village Parcel to apply equally to the Lodge Parcel and vice-versa. But occupancy rates did not recover, and memberships in the Lodge steadily declined, leading BHC to put the Lodge up for sale in November 2013, were CCG Management, LLC and CSMN Investments, LLC offered to buy the Lodge for $10 million. CCG plans to convert the Lodge into a residential non-critical care clinic and rehabilitation center for persons recovering from alcoholism, eating disorders, drug addiction, and similar conditions. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on December 7, 2016 and asserted claims sounding in fraud, promissory estoppel, and breach of an implied covenant that the Lodge would remain as a lodge, accessible to plaintiffs and other Cordillera property owners. On behalf of themselves and a purported class, they seek judicial declarations that there is an implied and enforceable restrictive covenant that requires that the Lodge continue to exist as a Lodge, accessible to plaintiffs and those similarly situated upon their compliance with the terms and conditions for use set of the Lodge's owner, that the Eleventh Amendment to the PUD is null and void to the extent of the modifications that allowed the Lodge to be eliminated and to be replaced by any of the 33 proposed new uses for the Lodge Parcel and that any modification that would allow the Lodge to be eliminated and replaced by any of the 33 other uses must first be presented to and approved by the members of the CPOA. Plaintiffs also seek corresponding injunctive relief and an award of compensatory damages exceeding $100 million. In her affidavit Ms. Ross, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of an affiliated Behringer Harvard company, states that she expects the Lodge to be completely or substantially closed on February 28, 2017. Thereafter it will no longer be open to the public or to Cordillera residents. During the preliminary injunction hearing BHC indicated that the Lodge would be closed on that date regardless of the outcome of the hearing. Plaintiffs asserted that BHC would not reveal when the contract would close other than to agree that it would not happen before February 17, 2017, the day after the scheduled preliminary injunction hearing. Fearing that they would be unable to prevent the closure of the Lodge and its conversion into a treatment facility if the purchase agreement closed, plaintiffs asked the court to enjoin the closing pending a final determination on the merits or at least for 60 days so that they could obtain discovery and attempt to establish their entitlement to summary judgment. Judge Jackson held that to succeed on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the movant must demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case; irreparable injury to the movant if the preliminary injunction is denied; the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the injury to the other party under the preliminary injunction; and the injunction is not adverse to the public interest. Judge Jackson did not find that plaintiffs have made a sufficiently strong showing on the other three preliminary injunction factors to sustain the likelihood of success element even if the Tenth Circuit still recognized the more relaxed showing. Court finds that plaintiffs did not show, much less make a strong showing, that they would suffer irreparable harm if the closing of the purchase contract were not enjoined. A copy of Judge Jackson's findings and conclusions dated March 2, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/zZmnfK from Leagle.com. Jane Wilner, Plaintiffs, represented by Lauren Beck Kerwin -- lkerwin@potomaclaw.com -- at Potomac Law Group, PLLC; Mark Apelman -- Terence P. Boyle -- at Boyle/Apelman, PC Behringer Harvard Cordillera, LLC, Behringer Harvard Holdings, LLC, Robert M. Behringer, and Michael D. Cohen, Defendants, represented by Bobby Gene Pryor -- bpryor@pryorandbruce.com -- Dana Glenn Bruce -- dbruce@pryorandbruce.com -- at Pryor & Bruce; Sarah J. Baker -- sbaker@sbakerpc.com -- at Sarah J. Baker, P.C. CSMN Investments, LLC and CCG Management, LLC, Intervenor Defendants, represented by Brian James Connolly -- bconnolly@ottenjohnson.com -- at Otten Johnson Robinson Neff & Ragonetti, P.C. BEST FOOD: "Zhou" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ZHOU MING ZHENG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BEST FOOD IN TOWN I. LLC d/b/a Best Food in Town; BEST FOOD IN TOWN JUN LLC d/b/a Best Food in Town; JUOYING CHEN; LIN YAN ZHAO a/k/a Emily Zhao; JIAN LIN CHEN; ZHI CHEN; ZHOU JIANG; and JUN CHEN, Case No. 1:16-cv- 03634-RBK-JS (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); 2. directing Defendants to produce a Microsoft Excel (.xls) data file containing contact information, including but not limited to last known mailing addresses, last known telephone numbers, last known email addresses, Social Security numbers, work locations, and dates of employment for all those individuals who have worked for the Defendants as a non-managerial employee between June 21, 2013 and the date the Court decides this Motion; 3. authorizing that notice of this matter be sent to members of the putative class; 4. authorizing equitable tolling of the statute of limitation pending the expiration of the opt-in period; and 5. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed Notice in conspicuous locations at the location where the Prospective Collective Action Members worked, or are now working. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=02bEgmX8 The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Taubenfeld, Esq. FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 571 0700 - and - John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762 1324 BIOAMBER INC: Faces "Chu" Suit Over Securities Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Chu, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bioamber Inc., Jean-Francois Huc, Fabrice Orecchioni and Mario Saucier, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01531 (E.D. N.Y., March 18, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Act of 1993 and under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint says Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that a large customer of the Company that was expected to purchase $2.8 million of succinic acid in Q4 2016 experienced a technical problem in its manufacturing facility and postponed the order to 2017 and as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant time. Defendant BioAmber is an industrial biotechnology company, which produces and sells bio-succinic acid to various chemical market customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com BREX INC: "Reed" Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Off-the-Clock Work ------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Reed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Brex, Inc., John Keeley and Kevin Floyd, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00292, (S.D. Ill., March 20, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid regular wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Brex, Inc. operates a chain of CarX tire and automotive repair shops in Illinois and Missouri. Reed was employed as a Technician at Brex's CarX shop in Belleville, Illinois. Plaintiff worked overtime without being paid required overtime premium wages and was required to clock out prior to completing repair or maintenance tasks. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 ext. 2 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com - and - Jack R. Daugherty, Esq. 112 Front Street Alton, IL 62002 Telephone: (618) 462-9160 Facsimile: (618) 462-9167 Email: jack@jackdaughertylaw.com CARRIBBEAN CRUISE: Class Settlement in "Aranda" Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Matthew R. Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the proposed settlement, in the case captioned GERARDO ARANDA, GRANT BIRCHMEIER, STEPHEN PARKES, and REGINA STONE, on behalf of themselves and classes of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CARRIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, INC., ECONOMIC STRATEGY, LLC, THE BERKLEY GROUP, INC., and VACATION OWNERSHIP MARKETING TOURS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 12 C 4069 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals against Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. (CCL), Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, Inc. (VOMT), The Berkley Group, Inc., and Economic Strategy Group and its affiliated entities (ESG). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, by using an autodialer and an artificial or prerecorded voice to call plaintiffs' cellular and landline telephones. Plaintiffs allege that ESG placed millions of calls to consumers without their consent. The calls featured prerecorded messages explaining to recipients that they would be eligible for a free cruise if they participated in various short political surveys. According to plaintiffs, ESG's true purpose in placing these calls was to sell vacation products at the direction and on the behalf of CCL, VOMT, and Berkley. After roughly four years of contested litigation, the parties reached agreement on a class-wide settlement of plaintiffs' claims, and plaintiffs have moved for final approval of the proposed settlement. Two purported class members have raised objections to the terms of the agreement. Plaintiffs' counsel have also petitioned for an award of attorney's fees. Defendants and one of the class members have objected to the size of the requested fee. The agreement's definition of the settlement class is the same as the definition of the class in the court's class certification order. That order certified two classes one for individuals who received cellular phone calls and one for those who received landline calls and defined each class as those persons in the United States who received the calls between August 2011 and August 2012 and (a) whose telephone number appeared in defendants' records or the records of third party telephone carriers or (b) whose own records prove that they received the calls. The agreement provides that defendants will establish a common fund in an amount no lower than $56 million and no higher than $76 million, from which all class members will be paid. The total fund amount will be equal to the sum of the award to class members, settlement administration and notice expenses, any incentive award to class representatives, and any attorney's fee award. Class members may submit claim forms for approval by a settlement administrator, who was selected by plaintiffs and approved by the Court. Each class member who submits an approved claim will be entitled to $500 per call received unless the total of such payments, plus payment of administration expenses, incentive awards to class representatives, and attorney's fees would exceed the $76 million cap on the fund total. If the cap is met, settlement class members with approved claims will be entitled to a pro rata share of the fund based on the number of calls they received. Plaintiffs' counsel have requested a fee award of 33% of the fund minus notice expenses, up to a maximum of $24.5 million, and plaintiffs request incentive awards of $10,000 for each of the four class representatives. No party or class member has objected to the requested incentive award for the class representatives. Under the agreement, all cash payments to settlement class members are to be issued via checks that expire and become null and void unless cashed within ninety days. After the first round of cash payments and payment of administration expenses, attorney's fees, and incentive awards, any uncashed checks or unclaimed funds will be issued to settlement class members with approved claims on a pro rata basis. The agreement provides that any uncashed checks and unclaimed funds remaining after this second round of payments will be distributed to a cy pres recipient selected by Judge Andersen. In addition to making payments into the settlement fund, defendants have agreed to conduct annual internal audits of their procedures to ensure that they do not make autodialed calls without consumer consent in the future. In exchange for defendants' agreement to make the required payments and conduct internal audits of their procedures, plaintiffs have agreed that settlement class members will be deemed to have released defendants from all claims against them. Judge Kennelly granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the proposed settlement agreement. A copy of Judge Kennelly's memorandum opinion and order dated March 2, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/YqeHPt from Leagle.com. Grant Birchmeier and Stephen Parkes, Plaintiffs, represented by Jonathan I. Loevy -- jon@loevy.com -- Scott R. Rauscher -- Arthur R. Loevy -- arthur@loevy.com -- Michael I. Kanovitz -- mike@loevy.com -- at Loevy and Loevy; Alexander Glenn Tievsky -- atievsky@edelson.com -- at Edelson PC Regina Stone and Gerardo Aranda Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander Glenn Tievsky -- atievsky@edelson.com -- at Edelson PC; Scott R. Rauscher -- at Loevy and Loevy Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rebecca F. Bratter -- rebecca.bratter@gmlaw.com -- Richard W. Epstein -- richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- Jeffrey Backman -- jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com -- at Greenspoon Marder, P.A.; Timothy A. Hudson -- thudson@tdrlawfirm.com -- at Tabet DiVito Rothstein Berkley Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Vincent J. Connelly -- vconnelly@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown LLP; Brian Patrick O'Meara -- bomeara@fordellp.com -- Kevin Michael Forde -- kforde@fordellp.com -- Kevin R. Malloy -- kmalloy@fordellp.com -- at Forde Law Offices LLP; M. Peebles Harrison -- at Rose Harrison & Gilreath, P.C. Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Backman -- jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com -- at Greenspoon Marder, P.A. T-Mobile US, Inc., Third Party Defendant, represented by Debra Rae Bernard -- DBernard@perkinscoie.com -- at Perkins Coie LLP Service List, represented by Brian Patrick O'Meara -- bomeara@fordellp.com -- at Forde Law Offices LLP; Rebecca F. Bratter -- rebecca.bratter@gmlaw.com -- Richard W. Epstein -- richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- Jeffrey Backman -- jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com -- at Greenspoon Marder, P.A.; Timothy A. Hudson -- thudson@tdrlawfirm.com -- at Tabet DiVito Rothstein; Brian J. Wanca -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- George Lang -- Ryan M. Kelly -- RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- at Anderson & Wanca; Christopher Lillard Dore -- cdore@edelson.com -- Eve-Lynn J. Rapp -- erapp@edelson.com -- Jay Edelson -- jedelson@edelson.com -- Rafey S. Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- at Edelson PC; David Bradley Helms -- at Lewis Rice LLC; Emily Yandle Rottmann -- erottmann@mcguirewoods.com -- at McGuireWoods LLP; John S. Steward -- at Steward Law Firm LLC; Max G. Margulis -- at Margulis Law Group; Scott David Owens; Nathan D. Leming -- nleming@wvslaw.com - - Steven P. Sanders, Sr. -- ssanders@wvslaw.com -- at WILLIAMS AND VENKER CEB INC: "Gordon" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Gartner ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL GORDON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CEB INC., THOMAS L. MONAHAN, III, GREGOR S. BAILAR, STEPHEN M. CARTER, GORDON J. COBURN, KATHLEEN A. CORBET, L. KEVIN COX, DANIEL O. LEEMON, STACEY S. RAUCH, and JEFFREY R. TARR, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00290-TSE-TCB (E.D. Va., Mar. 13, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on a Proposed Merger and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Merger or, in the event the Proposed Merger is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act. The case is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of holders of the common stock of CEB Inc. against CEB Inc. and its board of directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition of CEB by Gartner, Inc. through a merger. A shareholder meeting to vote on the Proposed Merger is scheduled for April 4, 2017. On January 5, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $54.00 in cash and 0.2284 shares of Gartner stock for each share of CEB stock that they own. If the Proposed Merger is consummated, CEB stockholders will only control approximately 8% of the combined company. On March 7, 2017, in order to convince CEB shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement (the Proxy Statement) with the Securities and Exchange Commission. While Defendants are touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy Statement, they have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy Statement incomplete and misleading. CEB is a global best practice insights and technology company that provides products and services to businesses worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971 1341 Facsimile: (305) 205 8284 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983 9330 Facsimile: (212) 983 9331 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com -and - Scott A. Simmons, Esq. Christopher J. Habenicht, Esq. MEYERGOERGEN PC 1802 Bayberry Court, Suite 200 Richmond, VA 23226 Telephone: (804) 288 3600 Facsimile: (804) 565 1231 E-mail: simmons@mg-law.com habenicht@mg-law.com CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: "Krebs" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned SPENCER KREBS, MORGAN SWITZER, DAVE WYATT, KRYSTAL HORSLEY, JACENTA MARIE PRICE, and MARKISHA DOBSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC, a North Carolina company, INFILAW CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, STERLING PARTNERS, an Illinois business entity, STERLING CAPITAL PARTNERS IV, LLC, d/b/a STERLING PARTNERS, a Delaware Corporation, JAY CONISON, Dean of CSL, CHIDI OGENE, President of CSL, DON LIVELY, former President of CSL, and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, a governmental agency, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16- CV-01437-CCE-JEP (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an order certifying a class. The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint Plaintiffs' counsel as interim class-counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z52V1pON The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas B. Abrams, Esq. Noah B. Abrams, Esq. ABRAMS & ABRAMS, P.A. 1526 Glenwood Avenue Raleigh, NC 27608 Telephone: (919) 755-9166 E-mail: dabarms@abramslawfirm.com nabrams@abramslawfirm.com - and - Timothy C. Bailey, Esq. D. Blake Carter, Jr., Esq. Taylor M. Norman, Esq. BAILEY, JAINS & CARTER, LC 213 Hale Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345 0346 E-mail: tbailey@bjc4u.com jrcarter@bjc4u.com TNorman@bjc4u.com - and - Anthony J. Maestro, Esq. 405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346 2889 E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com Counsel for Defendants Charlotte School of Law, InfiLaw Corporation, and Jay Conison: Johnny M. Loper, Esq. Rebecca C. Fleishman, Esq. WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE P.O. Box 831 Raleigh, NC 27601 E-mail: jloper@wcsr.com rfleishman@wcsr.com - and - Debbie W. Harden, Esq. Sarah Motley Stone, Esq. WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE One Wells Fargo Center, Suite 3500 301 South College Street Charlotte, NC 28202-6037 E-mail: dharden@wcsr.com sstone@wcsr.com - and - David Mills, Esq. Michael Hays, Esq. COOLEY LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: dmills@cooley.com mhays@cooley.com Counsel for Defendants Sterling Partners and Sterling Capital Partners IV, LLC: Adam K. Doerr, Esq. Robert E. Harrington, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, NC 28246 E-mail: rharrington@robinsonbradshaw.com adoer@robinsonbradshaw.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal from Approval of Class Settlement Junked ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three, dismissed the appeals case captioned WENDY SEGOVIA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendant and Respondent; ENRIQUE LOPEZ-CARRILLO, Objector and Appellant, No. B266570 (Cal. Ct. App.). Wendy Segovia was employed by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., in California in various non-exempt hourly positions, including team member, kitchen manager, service manager and assistant general manager, beginning in June 2010 until February 2012. Segovia commenced an action in August 2012 and filed her fourth amended complaint in October 2013. The parties engaged in extended settlement negotiations, and in August 2014, two years into the litigation, they executed a long-form stipulation and settlement of class action claims. On August 22, 2014, Segovia filed a motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement, which the trial court granted on December 29, 2014. On April 7, 2015, the claims administrator sent the settlement notice by first class mail to the 38,344 class members on the class list. According to Chipotle, 96 percent of the class members received the notice. Four class members, including Enrique Lopez-Carrillo, filed objections to the proposed settlement, and 35 individuals elected to opt out. Lopez-Carrillo contended that Segovia had not shown the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, that the notice to class members did not comply with due process and that Segovia did not meet her burden on class certification. Lopez-Carrillo did not opt out of the settlement, nor did he seek to intervene in the action. The trial court conducted a final approval and fairness hearing and on July 14, 2015, it entered an order overruling the objections of Lopez-Carrillo and the three other objectors, approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest, and directed entry of a final judgment. Lopez-Carrillo filed a notice of appeal from the judgment contending that the settlement's FLSA opt-in process does not comport with state or federal law, that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate and that the trial court erred in granting certification of the settlement class. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal observing that Lopez- Carrillo is a class member, but he did not intervene in the action. As a consequence, Lopez-Carrillo lacks party status and is without standing to appeal. A copy of the opinion penned by Presiding Justice Lee Smalley Edmon dated March 2, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/J3p6Ri from Leagle.com. Stuart B. Esner -- sesner@ecbappeal.com -- at Esner, Chang & Boyer; John N. Quisenberry -- jquisenberry@quislaw.com -- at The Quisenberry Law Firm; Andrew C. Quisenberry -- Andrew.Quisenberry@Coloradolaw.net -- at Bachus & Schanker, for Objector and Appellant Kenneth H. Yoon -- Stephanie E. Yasuda -- syasuda@yoonlaw.com -- at Law Offices of Kenneth H. Yoon; Peter M. Hart -- hartpeter@msn.com -- at Law Offices of Peter M. Hart, for Plaintiffs and Respondents Richard J. Simmons -- rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- Jason W. Kearnaghan -- jkearnaghan@sheppardmullin.com -- Daniel J. McQueen -- dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com -- Robert Mussig -- rmussig@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, for Defendant and Respondent The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three panel consists of Presiding Justice Lee Smalley Edmon and Justices Richard D. Aldrich and Luis A. Lavin. CITIGROUP INC: Oct. 18 Final Approval Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------- Citigroup 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 final approval hearing is scheduled for October 18, 2017, in the case, In Re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation. Numerous foreign exchange dealers, including Citigroup and Citibank, are named as defendants in putative class actions that are proceeding on a consolidated basis in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The plaintiffs allege that they suffered losses as a result of the defendants' alleged manipulation of, and collusion with respect to, the foreign exchange market. The plaintiffs allege violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, the Sherman Act, and/or the Clayton Act, and seek compensatory damages, treble damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On December 15, 2015, the court entered an order preliminarily approving a proposed settlement between the Citi defendants and classes of plaintiffs who traded foreign exchange instruments in the spot market and on exchanges. The proposed settlement provides for the Citi defendants to receive a release in exchange for a payment of approximately $400 million. On December 20, 2016, the court approved the notice of settlements and preliminarily approved the plan of distribution. The final approval hearing is scheduled for October 18, 2017. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket number: 13 Civ. 7789 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). CITIGROUP INC: Motion to Dismiss NYPL Class Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc.'s motion to dismiss the the second amended complaint in the case, NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET. AL, remains pending, Citigroup 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 May 21, 2015, an action captioned NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET. AL was brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Citigroup, as well as numerous other foreign exchange dealers for possible consolidation with IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs in NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL. filed a second amended class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York naming Citibank and Citicorp as defendants, in addition to Citigroup and numerous other foreign exchange dealers. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of "consumers and businesses in the United States who directly purchased supracompetitive foreign currency exchange rates" from defendants for their end use, and are seeking compensatory damages, treble damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On September 2, 2016, Citigroup and Related Parties, along with other defendant banks, moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 15 Civ. 2290 (N.D. Cal.) (Chhabria, J.) and 15 Civ. 9300 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). CITIGROUP INC: Appeal in "Allen" Class Suit Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- An appeal by the Plaintiffs in the "Allen" class action lawsuit remains pending, Citigroup 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 June 3, 2015, an action captioned ALLEN v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL. was brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup, as well as numerous other foreign exchange dealers. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of participants, beneficiaries, and named fiduciaries of qualified Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plans for whom a defendant provided foreign exchange transactional services or authorized or permitted foreign exchange transactional services involving a plan's assets in connection with its exercise of authority or control regarding an ERISA plan. The plaintiffs allege violations of ERISA, and seek compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement and declaratory and injunctive relief. On April 6, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint against numerous foreign exchange dealers, including Citigroup and Citibank. On April 15, 2016, the settling defendants in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION moved to enjoin the ALLEN action pending final settlement approval in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. On June 1, 2016, the court granted the motion in part as to claims based on collusive conduct and directed plaintiffs to file a separate pleading for claims based exclusively on non-collusive conduct. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on July 15, 2016. On September 20, 2016, the plaintiffs and settling defendants in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION filed a joint stipulation dismissing plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. On October 20, 2016, the ALLEN plaintiffs appealed the lower court's dismissal of claims against settling defendants in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, after having also appealed dismissal as to other defendants. The Second Circuit has consolidated the two appeals. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13 Civ. 7789 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.); 15 Civ. 4285 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.); 16-3327 (2d Cir.); and 16-3571 (2d Cir.). CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against "Baker" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. is defending against the "Baker" class action lawsuit, Citigroup 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 September 26, 2016, investors in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) commenced a suit captioned BAKER ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup, Citibank, Citicorp and CGMI, as well as various other banks. The complaint asserts claims under the Sherman Act, New York state antitrust law, and California state antitrust law and unfair competition law, based on alleged foreign exchange market collusion affecting ETF investments. The plaintiffs seek to certify nationwide, California and New York classes, and request damages and injunctive relief under the relevant statutes, including treble damages. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 civ.7512 (S.D.N.Y) (Schofield, J.). CITIGROUP INC: April 13 Hearing on "Beland" Case Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup 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 a final approval hearing is scheduled for April 13, 2017, on the settlement in the "Beland" class action lawsuit. In September 2015, putative class actions captioned BêLAND v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, ET AL. and STAINES v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, ET AL. were filed in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, respectively, against Citigroup and Related Parties, as well as numerous other foreign exchange dealers. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix the prices and supply of currency purchased in the foreign exchange market, and that this manipulation caused investors to pay inflated rates for currency and/or to receive deflated rates for currency. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Canadian Competition Act and the Quebec Civil Code and/or for civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and waiver of tort. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, or disgorgement, on behalf of putative classes of all persons in Quebec or in Canada who entered into a foreign exchange instrument or participated in a fund or investment vehicle that entered into a foreign exchange instrument between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013. Citigroup and Related Parties have agreed to settle these actions for CAD 21 million. On December 14, 2016, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. A final approval hearing is scheduled for April 13, 2017. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 200-06-000189- 152 (C.S.Q. Quebec) and CV-15-536174 (Ont. S.C.J.). CITIGROUP INC: Court Dismissed in Part "Sullivan" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss in the case, Sullivan v. Barclays, Citigroup 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 August 13, 2015, plaintiffs in the class action SULLIVAN v. BARCLAYS PLC, ET AL. pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York filed a fourth amended complaint naming Citigroup and Citibank as defendants. Plaintiffs claim to have suffered losses as a result of purported EURIBOR manipulation and assert claims under the Commodity Exchange Act, the Sherman Act and the federal RICO law, and for unjust enrichment. On February 21, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.). CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against Frontpoint Asian Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Citigroup Inc. is defending against the case, Frontpoint Asian Event Driven Fund, Ltd. et al V. Citibank, N.A. Et al., 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 July 1, 2016, a putative class action captioned FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, LTD. ET AL v. CITIBANK, N.A. ET AL. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citibank, Citigroup and various other banks. Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act and RICO Act, as well as state law claims for alleged manipulation of the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and Singapore Swap Offer Rate. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 5263 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.). CITIGROUP INC: Still Faces Suit Over SSA Bond Market ---------------------------------------------------- Citigroup 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 against lawsuits related to the supranational, sub- sovereign, and agency (SSA) bond market. Since May 2016, a number of substantially similar putative class action complaints have been filed against a number of financial institutions and traders related to the supranational, sub- sovereign, and agency (SSA) bond market. Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI and CGML are named as defendants in three of the complaints. The actions are based upon the defendants' roles as market makers and traders of SSA bonds and assert claims of alleged collusion under the antitrust laws and unjust enrichment and seek damages, including treble damages where authorized by statute, and disgorgement. These actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Beginning in August 2016, the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number: 16-cv-03711 (S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, J.). CLAYTON WILLIAMS: "Sobel" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------- Alan Sobel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Clayton Williams Energy, Inc., Clayton W. Williams, Jr., Mel G. Riggs, Davis L. Ford, Ph.D., P. Scott Martin, Ronald D. Scott, Jordan R. Smith, And Nathan W. Walton, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00312, (D. Del., March 21, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with the shareholder vote on the acquisition of Clayton by Noble Energy Inc. or consummating it unless and until the Company discloses the material information omitted from the merger statement; or rescinding, to the extent already implemented. The suit also seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On January 16, 2017, Noble and Clayton jointly announced that Noble will acquire all of the outstanding common stock of Clayton for $2.7 billion in Noble stock and cash where the value of the transaction based on Noble's closing stock price as of January 13, 2017, is approximately $139 per share, or $3.2 billion in the aggregate, including the assumption of approximately $500 million in net debt. The said merger consideration allegedly fails to disclose material financial projections for Clayton, including the financial analyses performed by Goldman and Sachs as well as terms of certain confidentiality agreements entered into during the sale process. Plaintiff is a shareholder of Clayton common stock. Defendant is an independent oil and gas company engaged in the exploration for and production of oil and natural gas primarily in Texas and New Mexico. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com Email: jwilson@faruqilaw.com - and - James R. Banko, Esq. Michael Van Gorder, Esq. 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel: (302) 482-3182 Email: jbanko@faruqilaw.com mvangorder@faruqilaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com CODE REBEL: Rosen, Pomerantz Named Co-Lead Counsel in "Springer" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted plaintiffs' motion for appointment as lead plaintiffs and as co-lead counsel in the case styled Robert Springer, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Code Rebel Corporation, et al., Defendants, No. 16-cv-3492 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.). The court appoints plaintiffs William Tran and Adrian Ybarra as lead plaintiffs, approves the Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and Pomerantz LLP, as co-lead counsel for the purported class. On May 10, 2016, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants Code Rebel Corp., Arben Kane, and Reid Dabney, alleging securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a). On May 18, 2016, Code Rebel Corporation filed a voluntary petition seeking bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 of 11 U.S.C. Section 101, et seq, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. On June 20, 2016, the court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter indicating whether the case should proceed against the individual defendants, Kane and Dabney, or whether it should be stayed in light of the bankruptcy proceedings. The parties submitted the letter on June 29, 2016, taking divergent positions. On July 8, 2016, the individual defendants' formally moved for a stay and submitted a supplemental brief in support of their motion. On July 11, 2016, William Tran and Adrian Ybarra seek appointment as lead plaintiffs, and to have their chosen counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and Pomerantz, LLP, approved as co-lead counsel for the purported class. Judge Nathan declines to address the scope of the automatic stay in the first instance, and, under its equitable powers, temporarily stays the action for 60 days to permit the individual defendants to seek their requested relief from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The court appoints plaintiffs William Tran and Adrian Ybarra as lead plaintiffs, approves the Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and Pomerantz LLP, as co-lead counsel for the purported class. A copy of Judge Nathan's memorandum and order dated March 2, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/OwwBly from Leagle.com. Lead Plaintiffs, represented by Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm P.A.; Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Joseph Alexander Hood, II - - ahood@pomlaw.com -- Justin Solomon Nematzadeh -- jnematzadeh@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP Robert Springer, individually, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm P.A George Torres, Movant, represented by Matthew Moylan Guiney -- guiney@whafh.com -- at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Afaq Shaik, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP Larry Strowbridge, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- at Levi & Korsinsky LLP Arben Kryeziu, Defendant, represented by Justin Blake Singer -- justin@dfmklaw.com -- at Feuerstein Kulick LLP Reid Dabney, Defendant, represented by Donald W. Hawthorne -- dhawthorne@axinn.com -- Felix John Gilman -- fgilman@axinn.com -- at Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider, LLP COMENITY BANK: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Lejune Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Comenity Bank, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01970 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 13, 2017), seeks redress on a classwide basis for business practices that violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). The Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in Cook County, Illinois. Plaintiff is the regular and exclusive user of a cellular telephone with service registered in her name. On December 28, 2016, the Plaintiff began receiving telephone calls from Defendant on her cellular telephone ending in 9717 via an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS), using "an artificial or prerecorded voice". This ATDS has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator. The Plaintiff received many calls since October 2016 or earlier from Defendant regarding allegedly owed consumer debt obligations. On December 28, 2016, Plaintiff was contacted by Defendant. During this conversation, Plaintiff clearly and expressly told Defendant to stop any calls to Plaintiff. Despite Plaintiff's revocation, Defendant contacted Ms. Brown twice more on her cellular telephone using an ATDS. Comenity Bank is a national bank and issuer of consumer revolving debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Ankcorn, Esq. ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PLLC 1060 Woodcock Road, Suite 128 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (321) 422 2333 Facsimile: (619) 684 3541 E-mail: mark@ankcornlaw.com COMPUTER SCIENCES: Bid to Withdraw Class Certification Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Strauch, et. al, the Plaintiffs, v. Computer Sciences Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-00956-JBA (D. Conn.), the Hon. Janet Bond Arterton entered an order granting joint motion to withdraw Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Defendant's motion to seal without prejudice to renew. If the parties move to renew, oral argument will be held May 10, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., Courtroom Two. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=U8oYq451 CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Class Certification Sought in "Gill" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Sue E. Gill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., a Washington corporation, and Midland Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01035-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves for class certification, and requests that the Court allow her to represent a class of: "all persons similarly situated in the State of Ohio from whom Defendants Convergent and Midland attempted to collect a delinquent, time-barred consumer debt, allegedly owed for a First Bank of Delaware credit card account, via the same form collection letter that Defendants sent to Plaintiff, from one year before the date of the Complaint to the present. The case action seeks a finding that Defendant's form letter violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts (FDCPA), and asks that the Court award damages as authorized by section 692k(a)(2) of the FDCPA. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HA063IpT The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Telephone: (708) 974 2900 Facsimile: (708) 974 2907 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com - and - Amy Wells, Esq. Keogh Law, Ltd. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726 1092 Facsimile: (312) 726 1093 E-mail: awells@KeoghLaw.com - and - Ronald L. Burdge, Esq. BURDGE LAW OFFICE, C.O., LPA 8250 Washington Village Drive Dayton, OH 45458-1850 Telephone: (937)432 9500 Facsimile: (937)432 9503 E-mail: ron@burdgelaw.com - and - The Defendant is represented by: Charity A. Olson OLSON LAW GROUP Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 2723 S. State Street, Suite 150 E-mail: colson@olsonlawpc.com - and - Theodore W. Seitz, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT, PLLC Capital View 201 Townsend Street, Suite 900 Lansing, MI 48933 E-mail: tseitz@dykema.com - and - Amy Wells, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 E-mail: awells@KeoghLaw.com - and - Ronald L. Burdge BURDGE LAW OFFICE, C.O., LPA 8250 Washington Village Drive Dayton, OH 45458-1850 E-mail: ron@burdgelaw.com CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Blanga" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit Services LLC. The case is captioned as Sophie Blanga, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Central Credit Services LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01459 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 15, 2017). Central Credit operates as an accounts receivable management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J Sasson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 339 0856 Facsimile: (347) 244 7178 E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com COLLEGIATE HOUSING: Faces "Dearman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Dearman, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Collegiate Housing Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00057 (W.D. N.C., March 17, 2017), seeks payment of overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. Plaintiff Dearman was employed as an inspector by the Defendant. Collegiate Housing Services, Inc. is a company that provides and manages student housing at learning institutions throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gibbons, Jr. Phil Gibbons Law, P.C. 15720 Brixham Hill Ave, Ste 331 Charlotte, NC 28277 Tel: (704) 612-0038 Email: phil@philgibbonslaw.com CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Arcuri" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC. The case is styled as Connie M. Arcuri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Credit Control, LLC, doing business as Credit Control & Collections, LLC, and Portfolio Investment Exchange, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01453 (E.D.N.Y.). Credit Control is a St. Louis credit collection service that offers debt collections and accounts receivables management.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. CURADEN AG: "Lyngaas" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled BRIAN LYNGAAS, D.D.S., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. CURADEN AG, CURADEN USA INC, and JOHN DOES 1-12, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-10910-MAG-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for entry of an order certifying a class of: "each person in the United States sent one or more telephone facsimile messages about any "Curaprox" product, but not stating on its first page that the fax recipient may request that the sender not send any future fax and that the sender's failure to comply with such a request within 30 days would be unlawful". The Plaintiff files this motion soon after the filing of its Class Action Complaint to avoid an attempt by Defendant(s) to moot Plaintiff's individual claims in this class action. Plaintiff is filing a class certification motion now as a matter of efficiency, to prevent Defendant from attempting to "pick off" the class representative and moot this action, and causing briefing on that issue. The US Supreme Court had previously ruled that an offer of full individual relief to a representative plaintiff under a Rule 68 offer of judgment moots that Plaintiff's claim and renders the case moot. Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523, 1529 (2013). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QGqUd9Ru The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Robert M. Hatch, Esq. Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC 134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658 5500 - and - Richard Shenkan, Esq. Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC 6550 Lakeshore St. West Bloomfield, MI 48323 Telephone: (248) 562 1320 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com CVS HEALTH: "Boss" Sues Over Securities and Exchange Act Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Julia Boss, et al., Plaintiffs, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CVS Health Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01823 (D. N.J., March 17, 2017) seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred, including attorneys' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act. The complaint says the Defendants' Insulin Pricing Scheme directly and foreseeably causes consumers to overpay for these life-saving medications. Thus, the action is brought to redress Plaintiffs' injuries that flow from Defendants' Insulin Pricing-Scheme which has driven up the cost of insulin to the substantial benefit of manufacturers. CVS Health Corporation is a Delaware corporation, with principal place of business at One CVS Drive, Woonsocket, Rhode Island 02895. Defendant operated 9,674 retail locations in 49 states and the District of Columbia, including in-store Target pharmacies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Critchley, Sr., Esq. Michael Critchley, Jr., Esq. Critchley, Kinum & Denoia, LLC 75 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 04068 Tel: (973) 422-9200 Fax: (973) 422-9700 Email: mcritchley@critchleylaw.com mcjr@critchleylaw.com - and - Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq. Keller Rohrback L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 Email: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com gobrist@kellerrohrback.com CWC OF MIAMI: "Matos" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Ramon Matos and all others similarly situated, v. C.W.C. of Miami Inc. and Mario Ferrari Magalhaes, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 21074, (S.D. Fla., March 22, 2017), requests double damages and reasonable attorney's fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, for all overtime wages still owing along with court costs, interest and any other relief allowed by the Fair Labor Standards Act. C.W.C. of Miami Inc. operates as Las Palmas Restaurant in Miami- Dade County where Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an inventory stocker and route deliveryman from December 16, 2015 to February 26, 2017. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: zabogado@aol.com DJM ADVISORY: O.P. Schuman TCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned O.P. Schuman & Sons, Inc., Plaintiff, v. DJM Advisory Group, LLC, Banner Life Insurance Company, William Penn Life Insurance Company of New York and John Does 1-12, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03563, (E.D. Pa., June 20, 2016), has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 21, 2017, under Case No. 2:17-cv-00157. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, trebling of statutory damages, injunctive relief, compensation, attorney's fees, and all other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendants sent advertisements by facsimile to Plaintiff. DJM is a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business in Mahopac, New York. Banner Life is an insurance company incorporated in the state of Maryland, with its principal office in Rockville, Maryland. William Penn Life Insurance Company of New York is a wholly owned subsidiary of Banner Life with an office located in Garden City, New York. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Alan C. Milstein, Esq. SHERMAN, SILVERMAN, KOHL, ROSE AND PODOLSKI East Gate Center 308 Harper Drive, Suite 200 Moorestown, NJ 08057 Telephone: 856-662-0700 Ext. 236 - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. Jonathon Piper, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 Defendant is represented by: Nicole L. Milone, Esq. John H. Gionis, Esq. Paul B. Sweeney, Esq. CERTILMAN, BALIN, ADLER & HYMAN, LLP 9th Floor, 90 Merrick Ave. East Meadow, NY 11554-1597 Tel: (516) 296-7000 Fax: (516) 296-7111 Email: nmilone@certilmanbalin.com psweeney@certilmanbalin.com jgionis@certilmanbalin.com - and - Kevin J. Kotch, Esq. THE KIM LAW FIRM LLC 1500 Market Street Centre Square West, Suite W-3110 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: (855) 996-6342 Fax: (855) 235-5855 DOORDASH INC: Faces "Angell" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Angell, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. Doordash, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv- 01478 (N.D. Cal., March 19, 2017), seeks injunction requiring DoorDash to cease all of its unsolicited text message activities pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in at least the following ways: Defendants, either directly or through its agents, illegally contacted Plaintiff and the Class members via their cellular telephone by using a telephone facsimile machine, thereby causing Plaintiff and the Class members to reduce cellular telephone time for which Plaintiff and the Class members previously paid and invading the privacy of said Plaintiff and the Class members. Defendant, DoorDash, Inc. is a food delivery service that allows customers to place food orders, through a mobile phone application or through its website, from various restaurants in the "DoorDash marketplace. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew M. Loker, Esq. Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Kazerouni Law Group, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ml@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com - and - Eric W. Kem, Esq. The Law Offices of Eric W. Kem 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1250, #168 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (844) 536-3476 Fax: (844) 536-3476 Email: ekem@kemlawfirm.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Hyde & Swigart 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com E. I. DU PONT: Amended Class Certification Motion Due April 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Marcia A. Crone entered an order in the lawsuit captioned GENE CHANCE, the Plaintiff, v. E. I. DU PONT NEMOURS AND COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00376-MAC (E.D. Tex.), granting Plaintiff Gene Chance's unopposed motion for additional time to file motion for certification and amended pleadings. The Plaintiff shall file an amended motion for class certification and any amended pleadings on or before April 30, 2017. In light of Plaintiff's forthcoming amended motion for class certification, an Opposed Motion to Certify Class, filed on November 1, 2016, is denied without prejudice to reassertion on or before the deadline. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jA552fUi EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL: Court OKs Notice to Former Nurses ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted plaintiffs' motion for order authorizing notice to similarly situated persons pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec 216(b), in the case ADRIENNE GALT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL, Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-6851 (E.D. Pa.). Plaintiffs Adrienne Galt and Nancy Murphy, former Registered Nurses at Eagleville Hospital, and opt-in plaintiff Nina Johnson, a former Nursing Assistant at Eagleville, brought a suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs allege that Eagleville violated the FLSA by requiring them to work during 30-minute unpaid meal breaks and then automatically deducting that time from their shift totals, depriving them of compensation, including overtime pay. Employees were entitled to such meal breaks for each shift of five hours or more under Eagleville's written policies. However, plaintiffs allege that their supervisors often required them to work through meal breaks, did not inform them that they could request compensation for missed meal breaks, and implied that employees would be punished if they sought pay for missed meal breaks. Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a collective action on behalf of all persons who have worked for Eagleville as a Registered Nurse, Nursing Assistant, Licensed Practical Nurse, or Mental Health Technician during any workweek in the past three years and moved the court for an order authorizing notice to similarly situated person pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Defendant argues both that plaintiffs have failed to make a modest factual showing that the proposed opt-in employees are similarly situated and that plaintiffs' proposed class is overbroad. Defendant also argues that even if plaintiffs' proposed class is conditionally certified, it should be limited in scope and time. Judge Rufe conditionally certified the case and held that plaintiffs' declarations provide sufficient details that, if true, would tend to show that other proposed collective members were forced to work through meal breaks without compensation and thus were similarly situated. Plaintiffs' claims are based upon a common policy of deducting meal-break time that is reflected in defendant's employee handbook, and are supported by specific allegations regarding the directives of plaintiffs' supervisors, who also supervised other employees. Judge Rufe declines to limit the scope of the class at this stage, as that issue is more appropriate for final certification and the plaintiffs' motion is granted. According to Judge Rufe, district courts have an obligation to monitor notice to potential collective members to "ensure that it is timely, accurate, and informative." In this case, the Plaintiffs' proposed notice must be updated to clarify the starting date for the collective action period. In addition, because Defendant argued only that the notice was premature and did not address whether it was fair and adequate, the parties will be required to meet and confer regarding the form of notice before Plaintiffs submit a revised form of notice to the Court. The Court will also require Defendant to produce information regarding the identities of potential opt-in plaintiffs to facilitate the distribution of notice, as Plaintiffs request. A copy of Judge Rufe's memorandum opinion dated March 2, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/3aclvS from Leagle.com. ADRIENNE GALT, Plaintiff, represented by: Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. David J. Cohen, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP 205 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: 312-233-1550 Fax: 312-233-1560 EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER A. TINARI -- ctinari@margolisedelstein.com -- BIANCA N. IOZZIA -- MICHAEL RONALD MILLER -- mmiller@margolisedelstein.com -- MORGAN BROOKE RAZOR -- brazor@margolisedelstein.com -- at MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN ELLIOT BAY: FDCPA Plaintiff Must Show Cause re Jurisdiction ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seatle, orders plaintiff to show cause why the court has subject matter jurisdiction in the case captioned KELLY ERICKSON, Plaintiff, v. ELLIOT BAY ADJUSTMENT COMPANY INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendant, Case No. C16-0391JLR (WD Wash.). Elliot Bay Adjustment Company, Inc. is a collection agency and debt collector as defined by the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(6). In 2015, Elliot Bay attempted to collect a debt from Kelly Erickson on behalf of Family Health Care, one of Elliot Bay's clients. In this attempt to collect the debt, Elliot Bay sent three letters to Ms. Elliot on March 1, May 12, and September 10, 2015 respectively. On September 3, 2015, and January 19, 2016, Elliot Bay reported Ms. Erickson's debt to a credit bureau. Ms. Erickson alleges that Elliot Bay did not notify the credit bureau that her debt was disputed, as required under the FDCPA. On April 28, 2015, after six weeks of failed attempts to recover payment, Elliot Bay filed a collection lawsuit against Ms. Erickson in Snohomish County District Court, but the collection lawsuit was eventually dismissed after Elliot Bay made seven unsuccessful attempts to serve Ms. Erickson. On March 16, 2016, Ms. Erickson filed a putative class action complaint alleging that Elliot Bay violated certain provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq., as well as the Washington Collection Agency Act (WCAA), RCW Section 19.16 et seq., and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW Sec 19.86. Ms. Erickson asserts that the court has federal question jurisdiction over the FDCPA claims and pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a). Ms. Erickson filed a motion for class certification. Judge Robert observed that neither Ms. Erickson's complaint nor her motion for class certification address standing. The court is concerned that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted in Ms. Erickson's motion for class certification because Ms. Erickson's pleadings do not allege that any concrete harm resulted from the various actions Elliot Bay took in attempting to collect the debt. For each of her other allegations, the court is concerned that Ms. Erickson has only alleged bare statutory violations, without any allegations that Elliot Bay caused her concrete harm or introduced a risk of harm. The court is concerned that Ms. Erickson has failed to demonstrate standing. Judge Robart ordered Ms. Erickson to show cause why the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Ms. Erickson's response may not exceed ten pages and is due no later than ten days after the filing of the order. Although not required, Elliot Bay may also submit a simultaneous brief on the topic of Ms. Erickson's standing that does not exceed ten pages and is also due ten days after the filing of the order. A copy of Judge Robart's show cause order dated March 3, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/ue8GFh from Leagle.com. Kelly Erickson, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan Matthew Pesicka -- Ryan@ConcordLawSeattle.com -- at CONCORD LAW, P.C. Elliott Bay Adjustment Company, Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher H. Howard -- choward@schwabe.com -- Derrick Anthony De Vera -- ddevera@schwabe.com -- at SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT EMERCHANTBROKER.COM: Faces "Morgan" Suit in W.D. Virginia --------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Emerchantbroker.com, LLC, entitled as Chris Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Emerchantbroker.com, LLC, and First American Merchant Services, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00023-NKM (W.D. Va., Mar. 20, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Norman K. Moon. Emerchantbroker offers payment processing services. The company provides merchant account, chargeback, check processing, and business funding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dale Wood Pittman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN 112-A West Tabb Street Petersburg, VA 23803-3212 Telephone: (804) 861 6000 Facsimile: (804) 861 3386 E-mail: dale@pittmanlawoffice.com EVO PAYMENTS: New Beginnings Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled New Beginnings Healthcare for Women, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Evo Payments International, LLC, and EVO Merchant Services, LLC, Case No. 2017cv285034, was removed from the Superior Court of Fulton County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00950-LMM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May. EVO Payments provides electronic payments processing and acquiring services for merchants and independent sales organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Adam Webb, Esq. Matthew C. Klase, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444 0773 E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com mattklase@bellsouth.net The Defendants are represented by: Allison Lynn Hill, Esq. David Lewis Balser, Esq. Jonathan R. Chally, Esq. Julia Constance Barrett, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP - ATL 1180 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Telephone: (404) 572 2440 E-mail: ahill@kslaw.com dbalser@kslaw.com jchally@kslaw.com jbarrett@kslaw.com EXEL INC: "Harris" Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled KELVIN W. HARRIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXEL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-01231-ALM-TPK (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of: "all individuals about whom Exel, Inc. obtained a consumer report for employment purposes between August 14, 2012 through May 1, 2016." Harris also asks that the Court enter an order deeming Harris an adequate representative of the Class, and appointing Matthew A. Dooley, Anthony R. Pecora, and Stephen M. Bosak of O'Toole, McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora Co., LPA as Class Counsel. The Defendant routinely violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act's stand-alone disclosure requirement by procuring background checks on employees and job applicants without first providing a disclosure properly informing that a "consumer report" would be procured for employment purposes. Instead, Exel relied on multiple documents within its application packet that were littered with extraneous information unrelated to section 1681b(b)(2)(A)'s stand-alone requirement. Harris seeks statutory and punitive damages for each class member affected by Exel's unlawful practice. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=shJbZdDF The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew A. Dooley, Esq. Anthony R. Pecora, Esq. Stephen M. Bosak Jr., Esq. O'TOOLE McLAUGHLIN DOOLEY & PECORA, CO. LPA 5455 Detroit Road Sheffield Village, Ohio 44054 Telephone: (440) 930 4001 Facsimile: (440) 934 7208 E-mail: mdooley@omdplaw.com apecora@omdplaw.com sbosak@omdplaw.com FCA US: Faces "Rothe" Suit in S.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case is captioned as Kirt Rothe and Catherine Plaster, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; FIAT Chrysler Automobiles N.V., a corporation organized under the laws of the Netherlands; Robert Bosch GMBH corporation organized under the laws of Germany; and Robert Bosch LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00032-LGW-RSB (S.D. Ga., Mar. 20, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood. FCA US LLC, also known as Fiat Chrysler or simply Chrysler, is the American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., an Italian controlled automobile manufacture.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John D. Hafemann, Esq. MILITARY JUSTICE ATTORNEYS 219 Scott Street, PMB 315 Beaufort, SC 29902 Telephone: (843) 441 3356 Facsimile: (843) 645 6530 E-mail: John@militaryjusticeattorneys.com FIRST PREMIER: Faces "Brandon" Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Takia Brandon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. First Premier Bank, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00720 (D. Nev., Mar. 13, 2017), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of First Premier Bank, in negligently and/or intentionally contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), thus invading Plaintiff's privacy. Sometime before March 2016, Plaintiff allegedly incurred certain financial obligations to Defendant. In March 2016, Plaintiff told Defendant to stop calling her cellphone. Accordingly, as of March 2016, any prior express consent to call Plaintiff on her cellphone was revoked. From April 2016, without any prior express consent from Plaintiff, Defendant initiated numerous telephone calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number. Defendant called Plaintiff's cellular telephone number using an artificial and pre- recorded voice. Defendant made numerous calls to Plaintiff using an artificial and prerecorded voice. Specifically, on numerous occasions, Defendant called Plaintiff's cellular telephone, during which an artificial or prerecorded voice would inform Plaintiff to hold for a live person. First Premier Bank, headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, is the 10th largest issuer of MasterCard brand credit cards in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Krieger, Esq. HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC 8985 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 350 Henderson, NE 89123 Telephone: (702) 880 5554 Facsimile: (702) 385 5518 E-mail: dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com FLOWERS FOODS: Court Limits Distributor Opt-in Class ---------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Carol B. Whitehurst entered an order in the lawsuit styled Antoine Richard, Darrell Richard, Chris Meche, Derby Douchet, Sr., Kevin Rabeaux and Mark Louviere, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC.; FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF LAFAYETTE, LLC; FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF BATON ROUGE, LLC; FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF NEW ORLEANS, LLC; and FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF TYLER, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-02557-SMH-CBW (W.D La.), granting Parties' stipulation regarding Plaintiff's amended motion as to FBC of New Orleans. Specifically, the Court ordered that the conditionally certified opt-in class for FBC of New Orleans is limited to any distributor working for any of the warehouses associated with FBC-New Orleans in the State of Louisiana from October 17, 2013 to the present and who has signed and mailed, faxed or emailed their consent form to counsel to join this action within 45 days of the date the Notice mailed. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qSWweKqJ FORD MOTOR: 2016 Shelby GT350 Owners Sue Over Defects ----------------------------------------------------- George and Diana Tershakovec, Jacques Rimokh and Herbert Alley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 21087, (S.D. Fla., March 22, 2017), seeks to temporarily and permanently enjoin Ford Motor Company from continuing the sale and or lease of the Shelby GT350; injunctive relief in the form of a recall or free replacement program; injunctive relief in the form of a buy back; costs; restitution; damages, including punitive damages and disgorgement; pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded; attorneys' fees and costs; and such other or further relief as may be appropriate resulting from unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied warranty, fraudulent concealment and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act. The 2016 Shelby GT350 overheats due to its defective transmission and rear differentials that manifest in the powertrain systems' inability to withstand the demands of race track driving, says the complaint. Plaintiffs purchased 2016 Shelby GT350 Mustangs specifically for track racing use. Ford Motor Company manufactures, sells and leases cars, including the Shelby GT350. It and/or its agents designed, manufactured, and installed the allegedly defective powertrain systems in the concerned vehicles. Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart Z. Grossman, Esq. Rachel Furst, Esq. GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN 2525 Ponce de Leon, Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (888) 296-1681 Facsimile: (305) 285-1668 Email: szg@grossmanroth.com rwf@grossmanroth.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Catherine Y.N. Gannon, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com catherineg@hbsslaw.com FTD COMPANIES: "Winograd" Sues Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------- Robert Winograd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FTD Companies, Inc., Robert S. Apatoff, Christopher W. Shean and Becky A. Sheehan, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02135, (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2017), seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs, and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. FTD is a floral and gifting company. The Company provides floral, gift and related products and services to consumers, retail florists, and other retail locations primarily in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and the Republic of Ireland. In December 2014, FTD announced the closing of its acquisition of Provide Commerce, a floral and gifting business previously owned by Liberty Interactive Corporation. However, Defendants failed to disclose that FTD's financial statements contained errors relating to the assessment of cross- border indirect taxes, the company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting, and that FTD had overstated the benefits of the Provide acquisition, says the complaint. On this news, FTD's share price fell $5.54, or 23.69%, to close at $17.85 on March 15, 2017. Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages as shareholders. Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. Louis C. Ludwig, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com lcludwig@pomlaw.com - and - Michael Goldberg, Esq. Brian Schall, Esq. Sherin Mahdavian, Esq. GOLDBERG LAW PC 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 1-800-977-7401 Fax: 1-800-536-0065 Email: michael@goldberglawpc.com brian@goldberglawpc.com sherin@goldberglawpc.com GEICO GENERAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Chiropractor's Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned A&M GERBER CHIROPRACTIC LLC, a/a/o Conor Carruthers, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-62610- BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla.). A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC is a medical treatment provider that had treated an individual named Conor Carruthers, who is a contracting party and/or named insured on an insurance policy issued by Geico General Insurance Company. In exchange for treatment, Carruthers assigned all benefits under the subject policy to A&M Gerber. According to A&M Gerber, GEICO pays policy claims pursuant to the fee schedule permitted by Fla. Stat. Section 627.736(5)(a) and GEICO's own endorsement. Under the endorsement, GEICO states that a charge submitted by a provider, for an amount less than the amount allowed above, shall be paid in the amount of the charge submitted. Notwithstanding this endorsement, A&M Gerber alleges that GEICO pays only 80% of the billed amount when the charge submitted by the provider is less than the fee schedule amount. A&M Gerber billed GEICO for services less than the amount payable under the elected fee schedule, and pursuant to the policy and endorsement, GEICO paid 80% of the charge submitted. Plaintiff pleads that pursuant to its interpretation of the policy and endorsement, GEICO paid an incorrect amount, a practice GEICO allegedly employs on a wide-spread scale. A&M Gerber filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, and has amended it, which GEICO removed to the present court. A&M Gerber moved to remand proceedings back to state court on November 10, 2016, arguing that GEICO had failed to establish the amount in controversy required under the Class Action Fairness Act, but was denied by the court. GEICO filed a motion to dismiss arguing that A&M Gerber fatally failed to allege compliance with the pre-suit notice requirement at Fla. Stat. Section 627.736(10). Next, GEICO claims that the amended complaint is in actuality a breach of contract claim impermissibly brought under the guise of an action for declaratory relief. GEICO also argues that A&M Gerber lacks standing to bring its claim, and that the cause of action is legally incorrect. Judge Bloom denied defendant's motion to dismiss observing that the fact that A&M Gerber could have simply brought an action for breach of contract does not prevent it from also seeking a declaratory judgment to establish coverage and the court finds that A&M Gerber has standing to assert the action for declaratory judgment. A copy of Judge Bloom's order dated March 2, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/rcPIFx from Leagle.com. A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Herbert Zebersky -- ezebersky@zpllp.com -- Michael Trent Lewenz -- mlewenz@zpllp.com -- Todd S. Payne -- tpayne@zpllp.com -- at Zebersky Payne, LLP; Mark S. Fistos -- mark@pathtojustice.com -- Steven R. Jaffe -- steve@pathtojustice.com -- at Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. GEICO General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Omar Andres Giraldo -- omar.giraldo@csklegal.com -- Thomas Lee Hunker - - thomas.hunker@csklegal.com -- Peter David Weinstein -- peter.weinstein@csklegal.com -- at Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Class Certification Bid Denied in "Waters" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled JAMES M. WATERS, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL PAYMENTS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 14-6134- CV-SJ-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Beth Phillips entered an order denying class certification of: "[a]ll persons on whose bank accounts Defendants drew a remotely created check on or after December 5, 2013 that was made payable to Global Payment Check Recovery Services". The Court said, "Plaintiffs argue that their claims are typical of the class because Defendants automatically issued remotely created checks on Plaintiffs' and class members' accounts pursuant to rules set forth in a computer program, without independently confirming whether each remotely created check was authorized. (Doc. 76, p. 38.) This fact is not related to Plaintiffs' legal theories and thus does not demonstrate typicality. (See p. 8, note 14, supra.) Further, Plaintiffs never received notice and never authorized the remotely created check issued on their account. However, the putative class includes all customers on whose accounts remotely created checks were issued-without regard for what is permitted by state law, or whether a customer authorized the remotely created check. Additionally, the class is not limited to customers who wrote checks to the District. Other vendors may have employed different methods of providing notice to, and obtaining authorization from, customers. Finally, Plaintiffs' method of issuing their original check (via online banking) may raise different issues of notice and authorization than potential class members who mailed physical checks or paid in person. Therefore, the fact that Defendants' procedures for generating the remotely created checks might be the same for all class members, this does not make Plaintiffs' claims typical of all class members. Plaintiffs' claims may be typical of all those who issued checks through online banking to the District, but the class is far broader. Thus, Plaintiffs' claims are not typical of the class". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IYXnmJ5v GLOBAL TEL: Loses Bid to Arbitrate Inmate-Phone Calling Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, denied defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the case titled IN RE GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION ICS LITIGATION, Case No. 5:14-CV-5275 (W.D. Ark.). Plaintiffs allege that Global Tel*Link Corporation (GTL) charged them unjust and unreasonable rates for inmate phone-calling services at various correctional facilities throughout the United States, in violation of the Federal Communications Act and the common law of unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, Rocky Hobbs, a resident of Texas, paid unjust and unreasonable telephone charges for interstate calls he received from Mason Hobbs during his incarceration at Southwest Arkansas Community Correction Center located in Texarkana, Arkansas, using telecommunication services operated by GTL between March 2015 through July 2015. GTL asks the court to compel Mr. Hobbs to arbitrate his claims against GTL, pursuant to an arbitration agreement that GTL contends was concluded between GTL and Mr. Hobbs. GTL contends that Mr. Hobbs funded his prepaid account with GTL over the telephone, and that every time he did so prior to March 30, 2015, he heard the following automated message before funding his account: "Please note that your account, and any transactions you complete, with GTL, PCS, DSI-ITI, or VAC are governed by the terms of use and the privacy statement posted at www.connectnetwork.com. The terms of use and the privacy statement were most recently." GTL further contends that from March 30, 2015 onward, Mr. Hobbs heard the following automated message before funding his account: "Please note that your account, and any transactions you complete with GTL or any of its affiliates, are governed by the terms of use and the privacy statement posted at www.connectnetwork.com. The terms of use and the privacy statement were most recently revised on March 30, 2015." Mr. Hobbs and the other plaintiffs oppose GTL's motion, and insist that Mr. Hobbs never agreed to arbitrate his claims at all. Judge Brooks finds that the automated messages did not provide a person of ordinary intelligence reason to know that GTL would infer from his conduct that he was assenting to the terms of use. It would have been very easy for GTL simply to have told Mr. Hobbs in the first place that it was proposing a bargain to which his assent was requested. But instead, it decided merely to invite him to visit a website where he might accidentally stumble across the fact. GTL's motion fails to establish that Mr. Hobbs ever made that discovery. There is no basis in the record for concluding that Mr. Hobbs ever agreed to arbitrate his claims in the case. GTL's motion to compel arbitration is denied. A copy of Judge Brooks memorandum opinion and order dated March 2, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/r9zk4B from Leagle.com. Kaylan Stuart, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Trask -- atrask@ktmc.com -- Donna Siegel Moffa -- dmoffa@ktmc.com -- Edward W. Ciolko -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- James Maro -- jmaro@ktmc.com -- Monique Myatt Galloway -- mgalloway@ktmc.com -- Peter A. Muhic -- pmuhic@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP; Amy C. Martin -- at Amy C. Martin, Attorney at Law; Andrew Raymond Lynch -- andrew@atlnotguilty.com -- at Andrew R. Lynch P.C.; James Radford -- james@decaturlegal.com -- at Radford Keebaugh; Lynn A. Toops -- ltoops@cohenandmalad.com -- Richard E. Shevitz -- rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- Scott D. Gilchrist -- sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com -- Vess A. Miller -- vmiller@cohenandmalad.com -- at Cohen Malad LLP; Susan L. Burke -- at Law Offices of Susan L. Burke Dustin Murilla, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Trask -- atrask@ktmc.com -- James Maro -- jmaro@ktmc.com -- Peter A. Muhic -- pmuhic@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP; Amy C. Martin -- at Amy C. Martin, Attorney at Law; Daniel E. Gustafson - - at Daniel E. Gustafson; Jeffrey B. Gittleman -- jgittleman@barrack.com -- at Barrack Rodos & Bacine; Susan L. Burke -- at Law Offices of Susan L. Burke; Patrick Howard -- phoward@smbb.com -- Simon Bahne Paris -- sparis@smbb.com -- at Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett Bendesky P.C.; Todd Seaver -- tseaver@bermandevalerio.com -- at Berman DeValerio Walter Chruby, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Trask -- atrask@ktmc.com -- James Maro -- jmaro@ktmc.com -- Peter A. Muhic -- pmuhic@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP; Amy C. Martin -- at Amy C. Martin, Attorney at Law; Susan L. Burke -- at Law Offices of Susan L. Burke; Benjamin D. Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- Robert A. Braun -- rbraun@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC; Barbara A. Podell -- bpodell@bm.net -- Daniel Berger -- danberger@bm.net -- Peter R. Kahana -- pkahana@bm.net -- Yechiel Michael Twersky -- mtwersky@bm.net -- at Berger Montague P.C. Rocky Hobbs, Plaintiff, represented by Peter A. Muhic -- pmuhic@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP; Amy C. Martin -- at Amy C. Martin, Attorney at Law Global Tel*Link Corporation, Defendant, represented by Marshall S. Ney -- mney@fridayfirm.com -- at Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP; Robert J. Herrington -- herringtonr@gtlaw.com -- Michael R. Sklaire -- sklairem@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig LLP Rocky Hobbs, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Peter A. Muhic - - pmuhic@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP GOLDEN STATE PHONE: "Padron" Parties Drop Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ISRAEL PADRON, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN STATE PHONE & WIRELESS, a California Corporation; and DOES 2 through 10, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-04076-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the court to make adjustments to the current scheduled proceedings: 1. Continue the Case Management Conference, scheduled for March 20, 2017, to a date convenient to the Court; and 2. Take off calendar, without prejudice, the plaintiff's pending Motion for Conditional Class Certification, currently scheduled for April 13, 2017. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=W96TFfL2 The Plaintiff is represented by: Hernaldo J. Baltodano, Esq. BALTODANO & BALTODANO LLP 33 Marsh Street, Suite 110 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Telephone: (805) 322 3412 Facsimile: (805) 322 3413 E-mail: info@bbemploymentlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan Fraser Light, Esq. Glenn J. Dickinson, Esq. LIGHTGABLER 760 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 300 Camarillo, CA 93010 Telephone: (805) 248 7208 Facsimile: (805) 248 7209 E-mail: gdickinson@lightgablerlaw.com GREENSIDE CORP: Court Approves Former Workers' Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the parties' joint application to approve the parties' settlement in the case captioned MARIO RAMIREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREENSIDE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. 16 Civ. 726 (HBP) (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs are twelve individuals who were former employees by Greenside Corporation. Plaintiffs alleged that they were not paid for all the hours that they worked, were not paid premium pay for overtime work, did not receive spread of hours pay, were subjected to retaliation and did not receive the prevailing wage on public projects. Plaintiffs assert their claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq. (FLSA), and various provisions of the New York Labor Law including the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The parties dispute whether defendant Kel-Tech Construction Inc. also employed plaintiffs. In addition to denying that plaintiffs were employed by defendant Kel-Tech, defendants deny that plaintiffs are owed any unpaid wages. The parties reached a proposed settlement prior to the matter being conditionally certified as a collective action or certified as a class action. The parties filed a joint application to approve the parties' settlement. The parties have agreed to a total settlement of $200,000.00, to be distributed among the plaintiffs on a pro rata basis. The parties have also agreed that plaintiff's counsel will receive one-third of the settlement proceeds as a fee. The amounts claimed by each of the plaintiffs, the gross amount of the settlement fund allocable to each plaintiff and the net amount that will be received by each plaintiff after deduction of one-third for legal fees and each plaintiff's allocable share of costs are as follows: Mario Ramirez $97,899.75 $28,577.40 $19,013.50 Amancio Soriano 89,979.40 26,265.42 17,475.26 Danny Garrido 71,903.20 20,988.89 13,964.61 Luis Xohua 87,599.20 25,570.62 17,012.99 Miguel Jiminez 115,333.60 33,666.43 22,399.40 Antonio Tellez 32,310.00 9,431.44 6,275.05 Jose Hernandez 38,192.80 11,148.66 7,417.58 Emilio Sarmiento 13,326.40 3,890.04 2,588.17 Genaro Castillo 22,873.60 6,676.91 4,442.37 Juan Vera 28,286.80 8,257.05 5,493.69 Onelio Ramirez 34,136.80 9,964.69 6,629.84 Agapito Sanchez 53,313.40 15,562.45 10,354.21 ---------- --------- --------- TOTAL $685,154.95 $200,000.00 $133,066.67 Plaintiffs are releasing only those claims that were brought or could have been brought in the action and the confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions have been deleted. Magistrate Judge Pitman approved the parties' settlement, concluding that although the settlement represents less than one- third of plaintiffs' total claimed damages, the defendants' documentary evidence is substantial and persuasive. Given the evidence reviewed at the settlement conference, it is not inconceivable that the trial of this matter could result in a defendants' verdict. The action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs. A copy of Judge of Judge Pitman's opinion and order dated March 3, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/zc4Nu7 from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Brett Mathew Schatz -- bschatz@bmsfirm.com -- at The Law Office of Brett M. Schatz Defendants, represented by: Lisa Pashkoff, Esq. MASSOUD & PASHKOFF, LLP 99 Park Ave # 3 New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212-207-6771 HAYTI, MO: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Hamilton" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted defendants' motions to dismiss the case styled HENRY HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HAYTI, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants, No. 1:16CV54 RLW (ED Mo.). Plaintiff Henry Hamilton filed a complaint against defendants Amy Leeann Inman, Judge Calvin Ragland, Glenda Overbey, and City of Hayti, alleging a violation of plaintiff's civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (count I) for conspiring to deprive plaintiff of his rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff maintains that defendants violated his right to be free from unreasonable seizure, custodial arrest, and imprisonment for the alleged ordinance violations; to be free from prosecution not based on probable cause; to be released from imprisonment; to have his case heard and adjudicated before being compelled to plead guilty or prepay fines and court costs under the guise of a cash only bond; and to promptly be brought before a judge for an initial appearance and released at the time of arrest. In addition, plaintiff alleges violations of the Missouri Constitution and Missouri Statute (count II) for the reasons contained in count I of the complaint. Finally, Plaintiff brings a claim of civil conspiracy (count III) for acting jointly and agreeing to prosecute plaintiff, have him illegally arrested and incarcerated, deny bond by setting the amount unreasonably high, and refusing to release him on his own recognizance. Plaintiff seeks to pursue his case as a class action. He also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages in excess of $1,000,000. Inman is the apartment manager of Cleveland Apartments, who questioned Hamilton, accuses him of falsification when the latter applied for public housing on July 28, 2011 and even filed a case against Hamilton for peace disturbance and assault. Glenda Overbey is the court administrator of the City of Hayti Municipal Court. Judge Ragland is the one who provided Overbey with a signature stamp that authorizes Overbey to set bonds and issue warrants without being reviewed by him. Defendant City of Hayti, Missouri filed a motion to dismiss counts II & III, while defendants Ragland and Overbey filed motions to dismiss all counts against them. Defendant Inman filed a motion to dismiss count II of plaintiff's complaint. Defendants Hayti and Ragland have also filed a motion to deny certification of class action status to plaintiff and dismiss plaintiff's class claims. Plaintiff filed a motion to deny defendant City of Hayti's motion to dismiss as to counts II and III or, in the alternative, to stay disposition. Judge White granted defendant City of Hayti, Missouri's motion to dismiss as to counts II and III. The motion to dismiss on behalf of defendant Calvin Ragland is granted and counts I, II, and III as to defendant Ragland are dismissed. The motion to dismiss on behalf of defendant Glenda Overbey is dismissed. Defendant Amy Leeann Inman's motion to dismiss Count II of plaintiff's complaint is granted. The motion of defendants City of Hayti, Missouri, and Calvin Ragland to deny certification of class action status to plaintiff and dismiss plaintiff's class claims is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion to deny defendant City of Hayti's motion to dismiss as to counts II and III or in the Alternative to Stay Disposition is denied as moot. A copy of Judge White's memorandum and order dated March 2, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/WnzxBT from Leagle.com. Henry Hamilton, Plaintiff, represented by: Jim R. Bruce, II, Esq. JIM R. BRUCE, ATTORNEY AT LAW 403 Saint Francis St Kennett, MO 63857 Tel: 573-888-9696 Calvin Ragland, Glenda Overby, and City of Hayti Defendants, represented by: A.M. Spradling, III, Esq. SPRADLING & SPRADLING 1838 Broadway St. Cape Girardeau, MO 63702-1119 Tel: 573-335-8296 Amy Leeann Inman, Defendant, represented by: John W. Grimm, Esq. John C. Steffens, Esq. LIMBAUGH FIRM 407 N Kings Highway St #400 Cape Girardeau, MO 63701 Tel: 573-335-3316 HUB GROUP: Awaits Court Decision in "Robles" Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Hub Group, 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 parties are awaiting a decision by the Court in the "Robles" class action. The Company said, "On January 25, 2013, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento Division) by Salvador Robles against our subsidiary, Comtrak Logistics, Inc., now known as Hub Group Trucking, Inc. Mr. Robles drove a truck for Hub Group Trucking in California, first as an independent contractor and then as an employee. The action was brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former California-based truck drivers for Hub Group Trucking who were classified as independent contractors, from January 2009 to August 2014. The complaint alleges Hub Group Trucking has misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that such drivers were employees. The complaint asserts various violations of the California Labor Code and claims that Hub Group Trucking has engaged in unfair competition practices. The complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages and attorney's fees." In May 2013, the complaint was amended to add similar claims based on Mr. Robles' status as an employed company driver. These additional claims are only on behalf of Mr. Robles and not a putative class. The Company believes that the California independent contractor truck drivers were properly classified as independent contractors at all times. The Company said, "Nevertheless, because lawsuits are expensive, time-consuming and could interrupt our business operations, Hub Group Trucking decided to make settlement offers to individual drivers with respect to the claims alleged in this lawsuit, without admitting liability. As of September 30, 2016, 93% of the California drivers have accepted the settlement offers. In late 2014, Hub Group Trucking decided to convert its model from independent contractors to employee drivers in California. In early 2016, Hub Group Trucking closed its operations in Southern California." "On April 3, 2015, the Robles case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western Division) in Memphis. In May 2015, the plaintiffs in the Robles case filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") which names 334 current and former Hub Group Trucking drivers as "interested putative class members." In addition to reasserting their existing claims, the SAC includes claims post-conversion, added two new plaintiffs and seeks a judicial declaration that the settlement agreements are unenforceable. "In June 2015, Hub Group Trucking filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and on July 19, 2016, Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss was granted in part, and denied in part, by the District Court. The motion to dismiss was granted for the claims of all purported class members who have signed settlement agreements and on plaintiffs' claims based on quantum merit and it was denied with respect to federal preemption and choice of law. On August 11, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to clarify whether the Court's dismissal of the claims of all purported class members who signed settlement agreements was with or without prejudice and, if the dismissal was with prejudice, Plaintiffs moved the Court to revise and reconsider the order. Plaintiffs' motion to clarify is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a decision by the Court." Hub Group, Inc. is one of North America's asset-light freight transportation management companies. HUB GROUP: "Adame" Class Suit in California Underway ---------------------------------------------------- Hub Group, Inc. continues to defend the case, Adame, et al. v Hub Group, Inc., et al., 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 August 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs' law firm in the Robles case filed a lawsuit in state court in San Bernardino County, California on behalf of 63 named Plaintiffs against Hub Group Trucking and five Company employees. The lawsuit alleges claims similar to those being made in Robles and seeks monetary penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. Of the 63 named Plaintiffs, at least 58 of them previously accepted the settlement offers referenced above. On October 29, 2015, Defendants filed a notice of removal to remove the case from state court in San Bernardino to federal court in the Central District of California. On November 19, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to federal court in Memphis, Tennessee and also filed a motion to dismiss the case pursuant to a clause in the independent contractor agreement stating that Tennessee law applies. Also on November 19, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, claiming that the federal court lacks jurisdiction over the case. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand to the state court in San Bernardino County on April 7, 2016, mooting Defendants' motions to transfer and dismiss. On July 11, 2016, Defendants filed several motions in state court, asking the court to dismiss and/or stay the Plaintiffs' suit for various reasons. On July 11, 2016, Defendants filed several motions in state court, asking the court to dismiss and/or stay the Plaintiffs' suit for various reasons. During a hearing on October 5, 2016, the judge issued an oral tentative ruling stating that the choice of forum provision was unenforceable. On Defendants' motion to dismiss the individual defendants, the court allowed for supplemental briefing for additional arguments regarding individual liability under PAGA. The court did not reach a decision regarding the motion to stay pending the outcome in Robles. Plaintiffs filed their supplemental brief on November 9, 2016 to which Defendants responded on December 6, 2016. The court had scheduled a hearing for January 19, 2017, which was continued until February 21, 2017. Hub Group, Inc. is one of North America's asset-light freight transportation management companies. HUB GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Lubinski" Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Hub Group, 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 a motion to dismiss remains pending in the "Lubinski" class action lawsuit. On September 12, 2014, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) by Christian Lubinski against Hub Group Trucking. The action was brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former owner-operators providing delivery services in Illinois for Hub Group Trucking. The complaint alleged Hub Group Trucking misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that such drivers were employees. The complaint also alleged that Hub Group Trucking made illegal deductions from the drivers' pay and failed to properly compensate the drivers for all hours worked, reimburse business expenses, pay employment taxes, and provide workers' compensation and other employment benefits. The complaint asserted various violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collections Act and claimed that Hub Group Trucking was unjustly enriched. The complaint sought, among other things, monetary damages for the relevant statutory period and attorneys' fees. On October 24, 2014, the Lubinski case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western Division), in Memphis. On September 22, 2015, the court granted Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss Lubinski's Illinois law claims with prejudice based on the contractual choice of law provision, which provided that Tennessee law governed. The court denied as moot Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss based on federal preemption. On October 2, 2015, Lubinski appealed this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati. On December 17, 2015, Lubinski filed his brief in support of his appeal of the motion to dismiss, asserting for the first time that the federal court did not have jurisdiction over the case due to a lack of diversity of citizenship. Hub Group Trucking filed its response brief on January 19, 2016, in part arguing that Lubinski had himself alleged diversity of citizenship in his complaint. Lubinski filed his reply brief on February 5, 2016. On April 1, 2016, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the district court -- without ruling on the merits -- for the district court "to consider the argument and admit the evidence necessary to determine the question of federal subject-matter jurisdiction." On July 11, 2016, with his federal district court case still pending, Lubinski filed an additional putative class action Complaint, with the same claims, in Illinois state court. On the same day, Hub Group Trucking filed a declaratory judgment complaint in Tennessee state court, seeking a declaration that Lubinski's claims must be heard in Tennessee (based on the contractual choice-of-forum provision) and that the claims must be dismissed because Tennessee law controls and Lubinski's claims are preempted by federal law. The parties agreed to stay all proceedings in Illinois and Tennessee state court until the federal court jurisdiction question is decided. On October 26, 2016, Lubinski filed a motion to dismiss for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, attempting to "clarify" the putative class definition and arguing that the Class Action Fairness Act's exceptions to jurisdiction apply. Hub Group Trucking filed its response to the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on November 29, 2016, and Lubinski filed his reply on December 13, 2016. On January 3, 2017, the Court held a hearing on Lubinski's motion to dismiss. On January 9, 2017, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on the citizenship of the putative class as of the date the complaint was filed in September 2014. Hub Group, Inc. is one of North America's asset-light freight transportation management companies. INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Currier" Securities Class Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- Kayd Currier, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Santosh J. Vetticaden and Darryl S. Baker, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01954 (S.D. N.Y., March 17, 2017), seeks compensatory damages pursuant to Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Insys had overstated its 2015 net revenue; (ii) Insys had misstated its sales allowances for 2016; (iii) accordingly, the Company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting and (iv) as result of the foregoing, Insys's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 15, 2017, post-market, Insys announced that it would delay the release of its financial results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2016. Insys advised investors that the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors has been conducting an independent review of the Company's processes related to estimation of and increases to certain sales allowances recorded during 2016 with a potential reduction of 2015 net revenue and pre-tax income not expected to exceed $5 million, as well as extended payment terms offered to certain customers during the third quarter of 2016. On this news, Insys's share price fell $0.49 or 4.64% to close at $10.06 on March 16, 2017. Insys is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes supportive care products primarily designed to assist patients with pain management attributable to their disease, treatment, or therapy. The Company's principal product and source of revenue is Subsys, sublingual fentanyl spray designed to treat breakthrough cancer pain in opioidtolerant patients. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. Pomenrantz LLP 600 third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalierberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.om - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. Pomerantz LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 697-6484 Fax: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com JOYCE STEEL: Crane Operators Class Certification Sough in "Keith" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled AARON KEITH; JOEL FARRELL; RYAN COULTER; CHRIS GRIFFIN; SHALON BOWEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. JOYCE STEEL ERECTION, LTD.; and JOE BOB JOYCE, the Defendants, Case No. 6:16- cv-01302-RWS-JDL (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a collective action on behalf of: "all individuals employed as crane operators or riggers by Joyce Steel Erection, Ltd. over the past three years and paid on an hourly basis". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xaiASdnS The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Ste. 15 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Telephone: (817) 908 9861 Facsimile: (817) 394 2412 E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com JT GROUP: Spennetta Suit Seeks Certification Classes ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned SPENNETTA FAMILY CARE CHIROPRACTIC, S.C., on behalf of plaintiff and the class, the Plaintiff, v. JT GROUP, INC., JAMES TURNER, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00228 (W.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying classes: For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act: "all persons with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. par,1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants JT Group, Inc., or C.J. Turner Co., Inc., promoting their goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. par. 227. By "compliant opt out notice" is meant one (i) on the first page of the fax (ii) that states that the recipient may make a request to the sender not to send any future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine (iii) that states that failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by the Federal Communications Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that provides instructions on how to submit an opt out request and (v) that includes a domestic contact telephone and facsimile machine number and a cost-free mechanism for the recipient to transmit such a request to the sender that permit a request to be made at any time on any day of the week"; and For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of Wisc. Stats. par.100.20, and Count III: "(a) all persons with Wisconsin fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date six years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants JT Group, Inc., or C.J. Turner Co., Inc., promoting their goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. par. 227. By "compliant opt out notice" is meant one (i) on the first page of the fax (ii) that states that the recipient may make a request to the sender not to send any future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine (iii) that states that failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by the Federal Communications Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that provides instructions on how to submit an opt out request and (v) that includes a domestic contact telephone and facsimile machine number and a cost-free mechanism for the recipient to transmit such a request to the sender that permit a request to be made at any time on any day of the week". The Plaintiff further asks the Court that it be appointed as class representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uF84ED3s The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Heather Kolbus, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 KAYABA INDUSTRY: Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Granted in Part -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marianne O. Battani of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the case entitled, IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. In Re: Shock Absorbers THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO Dealership Actions End- Payor Actions, Master File No. 12-md-02311, No. 16-03302., 15- 03303 Defendants KYB Corporation, f/k/a/Kayaba Industry Co., Ltd. and KYB Americas Corporation are manufacturers or sellers of shock absorbers that are manufactured or sold in the United States. Automobile Dealer Plaintiffs (ADP's) and End-Payor Plaintiffs (EPP's), also referred as the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs or IPP brought class actions against defendants under federal and state law based on defendants' alleged conspiracy to rig bids, fix the prices, and allocate the market and customers of shock absorbers manufactured or sold in the United States. On September 16, 2015, the Department of Justice announced that defendant Kayaba Industry Co., Ltd. agreed to plead guilty to criminal Information and to pay a $62 million fine for participation in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive parts industry. It agreed to fix the prices of shock absorbers sold in the United States and elsewhere. According to IPPs, KYB Industries is the largest manufacturer of Shock Absorbers. In their complaints, IPPs allege that market conditions conducive to an antitrust conspiracy exist. Specifically, the shock absorbers market has high barriers to entry, which facilitate the formation and maintenance of a cartel. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the End-Payor Plaintiffs' and Auto Dealer Plaintiffs' class action complaints. In their motion, defendants challenge the sufficiency of the allegations of the conspiracy pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). KYB defendants argue that the facts, as alleged in the complaints, support dismissal because they reveal that IPPs lack standing to bring the claims and they do not meet the pleadings standards articulated in Twombly. Judge Battani denied defendants' request to dismiss the federal claims and granted, without discussion the motion to limit damages under the laws of Utah and New Hampshire based upon applicable statutes of limitation. Judge Battani also dismisses ADP's and EPP's South Carolina consumer protection class action and dismisses, without discussion, EPP's unjust enrichment claim under California law. A copy of Judge Battani's opinion and order dated March 3, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/qM9LNO from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander E. Blum -- Gerard V. Mantese -- at Mantese Honigman, P.C. Dealership Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander E. Blum -- Gerard V. Mantese -- at Mantese Honigman, P.C.; Jonathan W. Cuneo -- jonc@cuneolaw.com -- Victoria Romanenko -- vicky@cuneolaw.com -- Yifei Li -- evelyn@cuneolaw.com -- at Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP End-Payor Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Erin Lindsay Calkins -- lcalkins@susmangodfrey.com -- Floyd G. Short -- fshort@susmangodfrey.com -- at Susman Godfrey L.L.P. Defendants, represented by Howard B. Iwrey -- hiwrey@dykema.com -- at Dykema Gossett KEANE FRAC: "Meals" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER MEALS, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. KEANE FRAC GP LLC, KEANE FRAC, LP, and KEANE GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01674-NBF (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. granting conditional class certification regarding Plaintiff's claims under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for the following class of employees: "all current and former Frac Supervisor Is and other like employees who work(ed) for Defendants in the last three years to the present; 2. directing that Plaintiff act as FLSA class representatives on behalf of current and former Frac Supervisor Is, and that Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC act as FLSA class counsel; 3. directing the Parties to meet and confer about the content, format, and manner of distribution of the Notice to the FLSA Class, submit to the Court within ten days from the Court's conditional certification order a joint proposed notice and plan to notify the FLSA Class, and toll the FLSA statute of limitation for future opt-ins until this Court subsequently enters an order which approves the notice and consent form; and 4. granting such other relief the Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TpN9bBly The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC 8201 Mission Road, Suite 250 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 766 5585 Facsimile: (816) 875 5069 E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com www.rmlegalgroup.com KITOV PHARMA: "Zulch" Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------ Christopher D. Zulch, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Kitov Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Ltd., Isaac Israel, Simcha Rock, Joseph Gunnar & Co., LLC, and HG Wainwright & Co., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17CIV01173, (Cal. Super., March 20, 2017), seeks compensatory damages including interest thereon, counsel and expert fees, reasonable costs and expenses incurred, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Securities Act of 1933. Kitov Pharmaceuticals Ltd., operates as a clinical development stage biopharmaceutical company developing combination drugs for the simultaneous treatment of pain caused by osteoarthritis and hypertension. Its lead drug candidate is KIT-302, a fixed dosage combination product based on the generic drugs celecoxib and amlodipine besylate, a drug designed to treat hypertension. Defendants allegedly published misleading information concerning Kitov's clinical trials for KIT-302. Moreover, Isaac Israel, Kitov's CEO, had been detained and questioned by the Israel Securities Authority on suspicion of publishing misleading information in connection with a clinical trial of KIT-302. On this news, shares of Kitov's shares fell $0.33 per share, or 11.46%, to close at $2.55 per share on February 6, 2017, and shares of Kitov's warrants fell $0.10 per warrant, or 10%, to close at $0.89 per warrant on February 6, 2017. Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Moest, Esq. THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C. 2530 Wilshire Boulevard, Second Floor Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 915-6628 Email: RMoest@aol.com - and - Timothy W. Brown, Esq. THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C. 240 Townsend Square Oyster Bay, NY 11771 Telephone: (516) 922-5427 Email: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net KP RECOVERY: Faces "Lugo" Suit in New Jersey Federal Court ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against KP RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC. The case is entitled as WENDY LUGO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KP RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC, KAREN POLLACK, and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01755-JLL-SCM (D.N.J., Mar. 15, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Jose L. Linares. KP Recovery Solutions is a full-service medical collections agency with expertise in self-pay collections, insurance appeals, and legal services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glen H. Chulsky, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GLEN H. CHULSKY 375 Passaic Avenue Fairfield, NJ 07004 (973) 227-5900 E-mail: g.chulsky@att.net - and - Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue,, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227 5900 Facsimile: (973) 244 0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com LAMI PRODUCTS: Vaughn Seeks Certification of Merchandisers Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled KATHLEEN VAUGHN, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. LAMI PRODUCTS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-20326-JAL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an order: a. conditionally certifying a class of: "current and former Merchandisers who work(ed) for Defendant between January 2014 and the present: (1) who were paid pursuant to Defendant's Merchandiser Pay Policy; (2) who worked more than forty (40) hours per week without overtime pay; and (3) who did not opt-in to the Leake or Cikra case"; b. directing Defendant to produce, in an electronic readable format, to the undersigned counsel within fourteen (14) days of the Order granting this Motion a list containing the full names, job titles, last known addresses, personal e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and dates of employment for all putative class members who worked as Merchandisers for Defendant between January 2014 who did not opt-in to the Leake or Cikra case; c. prohibiting Defendant's contact with any individual disclosed as a putative class member for reasons related to this litigation until after such individual's Consent to Join has been filed; d. authorizing the undersigned counsel to send initial Notice and a Consent Form, to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel by first- class mail; e. directing Defendant to post at every location in which it employs Merchandisers a copy of the initial Notice and Consent Form; f. authorizing the undersigned counsel to send a follow-up notice, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel but who, by the 14th day prior to the close of the Court-approved notice period, have yet to opt in to the instant action; g. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by Defendant's counsel a total of 60 days from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff form; and h. such other and further relief as the Court deems just under the circumstances. The case is a collective action to enforce the overtime provisions of Section 7(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff, Kathleen Vaughn, worked for Defendant as a Merchandiser from January 2003 until June 2016. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Ohio. On January 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated alleging that she and the other Merchandisers who worked for Defendant were deprived of proper overtime wages by virtue of Defendant's unlawful "Merchandiser Pay Policy." For the periods at issue in this case, Defendant did not pay its Merchandisers for all hours worked including but not limited to compensable travel time. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YILpmCbJ The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina J. Thomas, Esq. Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 333 W. Vine St., Suite 1200 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 286 8369 E-mail: cthomas@forthepeople.com bmazaheri@forthepeople.com LEXINGTON LAW: "Rosales" Files Suit Over TCPA, FCRA Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Eugene Rosales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lexington Law Firm, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00087 (D. Neb., March 20, 2017) seeks damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Lexington Law is a law firm offering credit repair services to consumers. To market its services, it sends consumers automated text messages offering its services. Defendant also illegally obtained Plaintiff's consumer credit report information, says the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 LIBERTY LIFE: Class Settlement in "Bush" Has Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, granted plaintiff's motion for final approval of settlement between plaintiff and Liberty Life Assurance Company in the case captioned JAMES L. BUSH, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON; HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-1507 YGR (EDL) (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff, on behalf of the proposed settlement class and the settlement subclass, and defendant Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston entered into a class action settlement agreement dated August 12, 2016 to settle all except those against defendant Hyundai Motor America. On February 28, 2017, the court held a final approval hearing to determine whether to give final approval to the proposed settlement and the court heard and considered all submissions in connection with the proposed settlement and the files and records, including plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of settlement, class counsel's unopposed motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Judge Rogers finds that the settlement resulted from arm's length negotiations and the terms and provisions of the settlement agreement have been entered into in good faith and the same is fully approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to, and in the best interests of, plaintiff and members of the settlement classes, and in full compliance with all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution. The Liberty Life Settlement Class consists of: "(a) Veterans who were honorably discharged from service in the United States Armed Forces and who are participants in ERISA governed employee welfare benefit plans that provide LTD benefits insured by group LTD policies issued by Liberty Life; and (b) the beneficiaries of such participants." The Liberty Life settlement subclass that the court previously certified for settlement purposes pursuant to the preliminary approval order, is finally certified for settlement purposes and the Liberty Life settlement subclass consists of: "Members of the Settlement Class whose LTD benefits were reduced or offset by the amount of VA benefits paid or payable to that settlement subclass member from January 1, 2008 through the settlement effective date." The court confirms its prior appointment of R. Joseph Barton of Block & Leviton LLP as lead class counsel and Michelle Roberts of Roberts Bartolic LLP as liaison class counsel, and plaintiff James L. Bush and absentee settlement class member Adam Ripka as the class representatives. Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses is granted, and the court awards class counsel attorneys' fees and expenses of $425,000.00. All claims alleged in the complaint and the amended complaint, including all individual and class claims, against defendant Liberty Life and the Releasees including the Liberty Life Released Parties and the Released Plan Administrators, are dismissed with prejudice by plaintiff and all other members of the settlement classes, without fees or costs to plaintiff. A copy of Judge Rogers's order dated March 1, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/me4N8l from Leagle.com. James L. Bush, Plaintiff, represented by Michelle Roberts Bartolic -- mbartolic@robertsbartolic.com -- at Roberts Bartolic LLP; R. Joseph Barton -- joe@blockesq.com -- at Block & Leviton LLP; Matthew Alexander Smith -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, Defendant, represented by Robert James Guite -- rguite@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP LIFECARE SOLUTIONS: "Navarro" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Navarro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lifecare Solutions, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02214, (C.D. Cal., March 21, 2017), seeks actual damages, statutory damages for willful and negligent violations, costs and reasonable attorney's fees, and such other and further relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions. Lifecare Solutions, Inc. is a medical supply company. Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's home telephone number in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's products. 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 MAGNA CHEK: Class Certification Bid Denied in Intersol Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Charles R. Nogle entered an order in the lawsuit captioned INTERSOL INDUSTRIES, INC., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a class similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. MAGNA CHEK, INC., a Michigan corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 05789 (N.D. Ill.), denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification with leave to refile motion for class certification in the future time. The Court said, "The Plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed in conjunction with the original complaint; has never been fully briefed; and predates Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint, which makes no reference to Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and it cannot meet requirement of Rule 23". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JM5sRExo MAGNUM HUNTER: Sagacity Suit Moved to E.D. Okla. Federal Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Sagacity, Inc., on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Magnum Hunter Production, Inc., and Prize Energy Resources, LP, and Cimarex Energy Company of Colorado, the Defendants, Case No. 17-CJ-18, was removed from the Marshall County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma (Muskogee). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:17-cv-00101-KEW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West. Magnum Hunter is a production company which engages in the exploration, exploitation and development, and operation of oil and gas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. REX A. SHARP, PA 5301 W 75th St Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901 0505 Facsimile: (913) 901 0419 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Bradley W. Welsh, Esq. GABLEGOTWALS - TULSA 100 W Fifth St, Ste 1100 Tulsa, OK 74103-4217 Telephone: (918) 595 4800 Facsimile: (918) 595 4990 E-mail: bwelsh@gablelaw.com MCKINNON & HAMILTON: Court Granted Joint Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled PATRICIA A. KLEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. McKINNON & HAMILTON, PLLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and CHARLES W. McKINNON, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-14527- RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Robin L. Rosenberg entered an order: A. granting joint motion for class certification of: "(i) all persons with addresses in the State of Florida (ii) to whom initial communication letters were mailed, delivered or caused to be mailed or delivered by Defendants (iii) that contained the phrases "Please forward a check in the above amount payable to McKinnon & Hamilton, PLLC Trust Account for processing. If we do not receive your payment within thirty days from your receipt of this letter, a Claim of Lien will be recorded in order to secure unpaid assessments, as well as costs, interest and attorney's fees incurred in collecting the assessments." (iv) that were not returned undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office (v) in an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes (vi) during the one year period prior to the filing of the original Complaint in this action through the date of certification; B. appointing Patricia A. Klein as Class Representative; C. appointing Leo W. Desmond, Esq. as Class counsel; and D. directing parties to submit a proposed class notice and notice plan within 60 days of the Order. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=muW0zqlm On November 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1692 et seq. (FDCPA), alleging that Defendant mailed, delivered or caused to be mailed or delivered initial communication letters which violated 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692g(a) and 1692g(b). The Defendants filed their Answer on December 21, 2016. On February 18, 2017, the parties jointly requested that the Court certify a class in the matter. MDL 1720: Citigroup Still Faces Interchange Fee Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. continues to defend against the case, In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee And Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Citigroup 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. Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed against Citigroup and Related Parties, together with Visa, MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various federal district courts and consolidated with other related individual cases in a multi-district litigation proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Interchange MDL). This proceeding is captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The plaintiffs, merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded payment cards as well as membership associations that claim to represent certain groups of merchants, allege, among other things, that defendants have engaged in conspiracies to set the price of interchange and merchant discount fees on credit and debit card transactions and to restrain trade through various Visa and MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct, all in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain California statutes. Supplemental complaints also have been filed against defendants in the putative class actions alleging that Visa's and MasterCard's respective initial public offerings were anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and that MasterCard's initial public offering constituted a fraudulent conveyance. On January 14, 2014, the district court entered a final judgment approving the terms of a class settlement providing for, among other things, a total payment to the class of $6.05 billion; a rebate to merchants participating in the damages class settlement of 10 basis points on interchange collected for a period of eight months by the Visa and MasterCard networks; and changes to certain network rules. Various objectors appealed from the final class settlement approval order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 30, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's approval of the class settlement and remanded for further proceedings. On November 23, 2016, counsel for the class plaintiffs that entered the now-vacated settlement filed a petition for certiorari review by the United States Supreme Court relating to the Second Circuit's decision. Additional information concerning these consolidated actions and the appeal is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.), 12-4671 (2d Cir.) and 16-710 (U.S. Supreme Court). In addition, following the district court's approval of the class settlement, and during the pendency of appeals from that approval, numerous merchants, including large national merchants, requested exclusion from the portion of the now-vacated settlement involving a settlement class certified with respect to damages claims for past conduct, and some of those opting out filed complaints against Visa, MasterCard, and in some instances one or more issuing banks. One of these suits, 7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL. v. VISA INC., ET AL., brought on behalf of numerous individual merchants, names Citigroup as a defendant. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.). MDL 2262: LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. still faces the case captioned, In Re Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation (the LIBOR MDL), Citigroup 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. Citigroup and Citibank, along with other U.S. Dollar (USD) LIBOR panel banks, are defendants in a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (the LIBOR MDL). Consolidated amended complaints were filed on behalf of two separate putative classes of plaintiffs: (i) over-the-counter (OTC) purchasers of derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR; and (ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR. Each of these putative classes alleges that the panel bank defendants conspired to suppress USD LIBOR: (i) OTC purchasers assert claims under the Sherman Act and for unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments assert claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman Act and for unjust enrichment. Several individual actions also were consolidated into the LIBOR MDL. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and restitution for losses caused by the alleged violations, as well as treble damages under the Sherman Act. The OTC purchasers and certain individual action plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief. Additional actions have been consolidated in the LIBOR MDL proceeding, including (i) lawsuits filed by, or on behalf of putative classes of, community and other banks, savings and loans institutions, credit unions, municipalities and purchasers and holders of LIBOR-linked financial products; and (ii) lawsuits filed by putative classes of lenders and adjustable rate mortgage borrowers. The plaintiffs allege that defendant panel banks artificially suppressed USD LIBOR in violation of applicable law and seek compensatory and other damages. Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings under the following docket numbers: 11 Civ. 2613; 11 Civ. 5450; 11 Civ. 4186; 12 Civ. 1205; 12 Civ. 5723; 12 Civ. 5822; 12 Civ. 6056; 12 Civ. 6693; 12 Civ. 7461; 13 Civ. 346; 13 Civ. 407; 13 Civ. 1016, 13 Civ. 1456, 13 Civ. 1700, 13 Civ. 2262, 13 Civ. 2297; 13 Civ. 4018; 13 Civ. 7720; 14 Civ. 146 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 12 Civ. 6294 (E.D.N.Y.) (Seybert, J.); 12 Civ. 6571 (N.D. Cal.) (Conti, J.); 12 Civ. 10903 (C.D. Cal.) (Snyder, J.); 13 Civ. 48 (S.D. Cal.) (Sammartino, J.); 13 Civ. 62 (C.D. Cal.) (Phillips, J.); 13 Civ. 106 (N.D. Cal.) (Beller, J.); 13 Civ. 108 (N.D. Cal.) (Ryu, J.); 13 Civ. 109 (N.D. Cal.) (Laporte, J.); 13 Civ. 122 (C.D. Cal.) (Bernal, J.); 13 Civ. 334, 13 Civ. 335 (S.D. Iowa) (Pratt, J.); 13 Civ. 342 (E.D. Va.) (Brinkema, J.); 13 Civ. 1466 (S.D. Cal.) (Lorenz, J.); 13 Civ. 1476 (E.D. Cal.) (Mueller, J.); 13 Civ. 2149 (S.D. Tex.) (Hoyt, J.); 13 Civ. 2244 (N.D. Cal.) (Hamilton, J.); 13 Civ. 2921 (N.D. Cal.) (Chesney, J.); 13 Civ. 2979 (N.D. Cal.) (Tigar, J.); 13 Civ. 4352 (E.D. Pa.) (Restrepo, J.); 13 Civ. 5278 (N.D. Cal.) (Vadas, J.); 15 Civ. 1334 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); and 15 Civ. 2973 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.). On May 23, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of antitrust claims in the action captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION and remanded to the district court the issue of antitrust standing -- specifically whether plaintiffs are "efficient enforcers" of the antitrust laws. On December 20, 2016 the district court resolved the issue of antitrust standing, dismissing certain plaintiffs' actions on efficient enforcer grounds, and limiting the classes of OTC and exchange-traded derivative instruments purchasers. The district court also dismissed antitrust claims against Citigroup and Citibank brought by several individual plaintiffs outside of New York on personal jurisdiction grounds. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 11 MD 2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 16-545 (U.S.). MDL 2673: Citigroup Still Faces Suit over Treasury Securities ------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. continues to defend against the class action lawsuit involving allegations that they colluded to manipulate U.S. Treasury securities markets, Citigroup 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. Beginning in July 2015, CGMI and numerous other U.S. Treasury primary dealer banks, have been named as defendants in a number of substantially similar putative class actions involving allegations that they colluded to manipulate U.S. Treasury securities markets. The actions are based upon the defendants' roles as registered primary dealers of U.S. Treasury securities and assert claims of alleged collusion under the antitrust laws and manipulation under the Commodity Exchange Act and seek damages, including treble damages where authorized by statute, and injunctive relief. These actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Alabama and the District of the Virgin Islands. In December 2015, the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number: 15-MD-2673 (S.D.N.Y.) (Gardephe, J.). MDL 2704: Citigroup Still Faces Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. continues to defend against the case, In Re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation, Citigroup 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. Beginning in November 2015, numerous interest rate swap (IRS) market participants, including Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI and CGML, were named as defendants in a number of industry-wide putative class actions. These actions have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption IN RE INTEREST RATE SWAPS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Plaintiffs in these actions allege that defendants colluded to prevent the development of exchange-like trading for IRS, thereby causing the putative classes to suffer losses in connection with their IRS transactions. Plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims and claims for unjust enrichment. Also consolidated under the same caption are two individual actions filed by swap execution facilities, asserting federal and state antitrust claims as well as claims for unjust enrichment and tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiffs in all of these actions seek treble damages, fees, costs and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16-MD-2704 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.). MTAG SERVICES: Connecticut Judge Narrows Claims in "Weldon" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Janet C. Hall of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss the case ROGER WELDON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MTAG SERVICES, LLC et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-783(JCH) (D. Conn.). The City of Bridgeport imposed four municipal tax liens on Roger Weldon's home after the latter did not pay his property taxes for several years. The City assigned the liens to MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC, which immediately assigned the liens it received to MTAG Services, LLC or MTAG as its custodian or directly to MTAG as custodian for MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC. MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC changed its name to Caz Creek CT, LLC. In August 2015, MTAG, in its custodial capacity, assigned the four liens to Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC. On October 19, 2015, MTAG, as custodian for MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC, filed a tax lien foreclosure lawsuit against Weldon in state court to collect on the liens, but the complaint did not indicate that the liens had been assigned to Cazenovia. Rather, materials attached to the filing expressly stated that plaintiff as named in the complaint is the creditor to whom the debt is owed, and a notice of lis pendens dated the same day as the state complaint indicated that MTAG Services, LLC, as custodian for MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC is now the owner and holder of said liens. The state complaint demanded foreclosure of the lien, attorney's fees, interest, and costs. Caz Creek appears under its previous name, MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC. Weldon initially denied some of the allegations in the state complaint, but later asked that Caz Creek and MTAG inform him of the amount necessary to pay off the debts. On December 31, 2015, Weldon provided a certified check for $25,463.23, the amount that MTAG and Caz Creek had demanded by email. MTAG and Caz Creek withdrew the lawsuit the same day and later refunded $375, but the remaining $25,088.23 Weldon paid included charges for $1,100.00 of attorney's fees and $1,319.20 of costs. On December 29, 2015, February 4, 2016, and March 23, 2016, Weldon demanded that defendants discharge the tax liens on his home for tax years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, which were at that point paid in full. Cazenovia filed a discharge of the 2011 and 2013 tax liens on February 4, 2016. For the 2010 and 2012 liens, Cazenovia filed a release dated June 16, 2016, which was notated as received by the City of Bridgeport on July 13, 2016. Neither MTAG nor Cazenovia are licensed Connecticut Consumer Collection Agencies. Caz Creek is licensed as a consumer collection agency, as of November 18, 2015, under its current name, Caz Creek CT, LLC. Weldon claims defendants engaged in wide-ranging, unlawful conduct related to their prosecution of municipal tax lien foreclosure actions. In his first amended complaint, Weldon alleged conversion (count I), violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (count II), abuse of process (count III), violations of the Connecticut Creditor Collection Practices Act (count IV), violations of sections 12-195g, 42a-9-513, and 42a-9-625 of the Connecticut General Statutes (count V), violations of section 49-8 of the Connecticut General Statutes (count VI), and unjust enrichment(count VII). Caz Creek and Cazenovia filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them, under Rules 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6)., as did MTAG. Judge Hall granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. Counts I, II A-D, and II H are dismissed on both litigation privilege and Noerr-Pennington grounds, while counts II E-F are dismissed on Noerr-Pennington grounds. Count II F, insofar as it brings claims against Cazenovia, is dismissed for lack of standing. Count II G is dismissed because defendants are not consumer collection agencies, and count III is dismissed because he failed to allege that defendants instituted the state foreclosure suit for any collateral purpose. Counts IV A-C are dismissed because the municipal tax liens at issue in the case do not qualify as debts within the meaning of the CCPA, and count V, similarly, is dismissed because section 12-195g of the Connecticut General Statutes does not apply to municipal tax liens on real property. Lastly, count VII is dismissed for failure to plausibly state an unjust enrichment claim, where it is undisputed that Weldon's liens were discharged in exchange for the payment he made to defendants. Defendants' motions to dismiss count VI on Article III standing grounds are denied. Count VI is the only claim that survives. A copy of Judge Hall's order dated February 28, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/4hfVpX from Leagle.com. Roger Weldon, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Blinn -- at Consumer Law Group; Peter A. Holland -- at The Holland Law Firm, P.C.; Joseph S. Tusa -- at Tusa P.C. MTAG Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Soukup -- asoukup@cov.com -- Christian J. Pistilli -- cpistilli@cov.com -- at Covington & Burling, LLP; Richard S. Order -- rorder@uks.com -- Adam B. Marks -- amarks@uks.com -- at Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC CAZ Creek CT, LLC and Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC, Defendants, represented by Alyx S. Pattison -- alyx.pattison@akerman.com -- Dara Chevlin Tarkowski -- dara.tarkowski@akerman.com -- Julian Dayal -- julian.dayal@akerman.com -- at Akerman, LLP; Michael J. Jones -- mjones@ibolaw.com -- Michael Andrew Zamat -- at Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara LLC Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alyx S. Pattison, Akerman, LLP, pro hac vice, Dara Chevlin Tarkowski, Akerman, LLP, pro hac vice, Julian Dayal, Akerman, LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Jones, Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara LLC, Jessica Marie Signor, Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara LLC & Michael Andrew Zamat, Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara LLC MEAD JOHNSON: "Steinberg" Sues Over Sale to Benckiser Group ----------------------------------------------------------- Chaile Steinberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, James M. Cornelius, Steven M. Altschuler, Howard B. Bernick, Kimberly A. Casiano, Anna C. Catalano, Celeste A. Clark, Stephen W. Golsby, Michael Grobstein, Kasper Jakobsen, Peter G. Ratcliffe, Elliott Sigal, Robert S. Singer, Michael Sherman, Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC and Marigold Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00304 (D. Del., March 21, 2017) seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of Mead Johnson Nutrition Company by Reckitt Benckiser Group; rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages; reasonable allowance for Plaintiff's attorneys and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, Mead Johnson Nutrition Company will be acquired by Reckitt Benckiser Group. Shareholders of Mead Johnson will receive $90.00 in cash for each share of Mead Johnson common stock they own. Defendants have allegedly locked up the merger and have precluded other bidders from making successful competing offers for the Company. Plaintiff claims that amount in consideration is inadequate, considering that the intrinsic value of the Company is materially in excess of the amount offered in the merger, thus denying them their right to share proportionately and equitably in the true value of the Company's valuable and profitable business, and future growth in profits and earnings. Plaintiff also alleges that the Company's officers and directors stand to receive substantial benefits as a result of this merger. Mead Johnson is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive office at 2701 Patriot Blvd., Glenview, Illinois 60026. It manufactures, distributes, and sells infant formula, children's nutrition, and other nutritional products, offering infant formula products and children's nutrition products. The Company markets its products to mothers, health care professionals, and retailers in approximately 50 countries in Asia, North America, Latin America and Europe. Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 Email: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com MEMORIALCARE: Faces "Cortez" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ Hermalinda Cortez, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Memorialcare Health System, Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, Long Beach Memorial Hospital, Miller Children's Hospital Long Beach Auxiliary, Inc. d/b/a Miller Children's & Women's Hospital Long Beach, Community Hospital Long Beach, Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center, Saddleback Memorial Medical Center, Memorialcare Medical Group and Greater Newport Physicians Medical Group, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive,, Case No. BC654858, (Cal. Super., March 21, 2017), seeks relief and damages, equitable remedies, declaratory relief, disgorgement, accounting, and restitution for Defendants' violations of California's unfair competition laws and the California Business & Professions Code. Plaintiff is a Medi-Cal eligible beneficiary who received health care services at one of Defendants' MemorialCare Facilities after a bicycle accident. Despite presenting her eligibility in the form of her State of California Benefits Identification Card, Defendant asserted a hospital lien against any and all settlements, judgments, and proceeds of any satisfaction of judgment of Plaintiff and did not include any language limiting recovery to the portion of such award specifically allocated for the beneficiary's medical expenses. Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Taylor L. Emerson, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805)212-5124 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com ktrfombacher@bradlevarombacheT.com MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL: Faces "Pace" Suit in W.D. Wash. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merchants & Professional Credit Bureau, Inc. The case is captioned as Michelle Pace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL CREDIT BUREAU, INC., and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00411 (W.D. Wash., Mar. 15, 2017). Merchants and Professional is debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Matthew Pesicka, Esq. CONCORD LAW, P.C. Waterfront Park Building 144 Railroad Avenue, Suite 236 Edmonds, WA 98020 Telephone: (206) 512 8029 Facsimile: (206) 512 8914 E-mail: Ryan@ConcordLawSeattle.com METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: "Zimmer" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Zimmer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Metaldyne Performance Group Inc., George Thanopoulos, Kevin Penn, Loren Easton, Michael Fisch, Nick Bhambri, William Jackson, Jeffrey Stafeil and John Pearson Smith, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-10508, (E.D. Mich., February 16, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a merger and any vote unless and until defendants disclose and disseminate relevant material information. The suit further seeks an award of rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger, reasonable allowance for attorneys and experts' fees, and such other and further relief for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On November 3, 2016, Metaldyne announced that it was to be sold to American Axle. Metaldyne stockholders will receive $13.50 in cash and 0.5 shares of American Axle common stock with a value of $11.75 for each share of Metaldyne common stock they own. Said transaction is valued at approximately $1.6 billion. Plaintiffs claim that the company's financial forecast was not disclosed to them prior to the merger discussion and there were offers as high as $21.00 to $22.50 to counter American Axle's offer. The merger consideration appears inadequate in light of its recent financial performance and growth prospects, says the Plaintiff. Metaldyne produces complex metal-formed components for engine, transmission, driveline and suspension applications for the automotive, commercial and industrial markets. American Axle is a global automotive manufacturer and supplier of driveline and drive train components and systems. Plaintiff is represented by: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com Email: jwilson@faruqilaw.com - and - Anthony L. DeLuca, Esq. ANTHONY L. DELUCA, PLC 14950 East Jefferson Ave., Suite 170 Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230 Tel: (313) 821-5905 Fax: (313) 821-5906 Email: Anthony@aldplc.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com METROPOLITAN STEEL: "Kenvil" Seeks Trust Funds for Contract Job --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenvil United Corp., on behalf of itself and all similarly situated Lien Law trust fund beneficiaries in connection with the improvement of various land and premises, as described herein, Plaintiff, v. David Michael Hartley, David Kent Hartley and David M. Cool, Defendants, Case No. 651455/2017 (N.Y. Sup., March 20, 2017), seeks trust funds which have been received with respect to construction work at Riverside Center Building 5 Project; all additional amounts necessary to pay all respective claims of all claimants and Kenvil; and reasonable and adequate attorneys' fees and disbursements for violation of the New York State Lien Law. Defendants are officers of Metropolitan Steel Industries Inc. (MSI), who entered into a subcontract with Kenvil to install, among other things, structural steel, metal deck and shear studs in connection with the construction work at Riverside Center Building 5, New York, New York. On August 3, 2016, MSI filed for bankruptcy protection by filing a voluntary petition with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. According to the complaint, MSI failed and refused to pay Kenvil the outstanding amount due of no less than $607,334.25 despite that it had received payments from the owner of the property. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis A. Modugno, Esq. Scott A. Levin, Esq. McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP 225 Liberty Street, 36th Floor New York, NY 10281 Tel: (212) 483-9490 MIDLAND CREDIT: "Reynolds" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. Federal Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Justin Reynolds, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., a Kansas corporation, the Defendant, Case No. CACE-17- 003547, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv- 60576-WPD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. Midland Credit helps consumers resolve past-due debt obligations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher W. Legg, Esq. CHRISTOPHER LEGG, P.A. 3837 Hollywood Blvd., Ste. B Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 962 2333 Facsimile: (954) 927 2451 E-mail: chris@theconsumerlawyers.com - and - Matthew Ian Buchwald, Esq. PO Box 547266 Surfside, FL 33154 Telephone: (305) 788 2680 E-mail: matt@theconsumerlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Cory William Eichhorn, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374 8500 Facsimile: (305) 789 7799 E-mail: cory.eichhorn@hklaw.com MIDWEST MOVING: Hearing on Class Certification Continued to May 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Jorge L. Alonso entered an order in the lawsuit entitled Mackenzie Drake, the Plaintiff, v. Midwest Moving and Storage Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05317 (N.D. Ill.), granting Plaintiff's motion for certification of collective action for disclosure of potential opt-in Plaintiffs' contact information and approval of Plaintiff's notice. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 14, 2017, status hearing will be held and continued to May 9, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. The Plaintiff shall submit a proposed class notice to Judge Alonso's proposed order email address by March 28, 17. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vNgCn5a3 MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces "Dellisola" Suit Over Alipay Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Dellisola, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Moneygram International, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00777-M (N.D. Tex., March 17, 2017), is brought on behalf of all holders of the common stock of Moneygram, and seeks to enjoin the proposed transaction in which Alipay will acquire each outstanding share of Moneygram common stock through a flawed process and for an inadequate consideration. Ant Financial, owner of Chinese payment platform Alipay, has agreed to buy MoneyGram, for $880 million. According to the complaint, the merger consideration is insufficient and undervalues the Company. Indeed, analysts have set higher price targets for the Company's common stock and the Company's stock price closed at $13.00 as recently as January 4, 2017, meaning shareholders are being offered a measly 1.9% premium for their shares. Furthermore, says the Plaintiff, the merger consideration is the result of a flawed sales process. Defendant MoneyGram is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices in Dallas, Texas. The Company provides payments services to consumers and business through a network of agents and its financial institution customers. The Company enables consumers to make payments and to transfer money around the world. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Balon B. Bradley, Esq. Law Offices of Balon B. Bradley 5473 Blair Road, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75231 Tel: (972) 991-1582 - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Monteverde & Associates PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com - and - Daniel Kuznicki, Esq. Brower Piven, APC 475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 501-9000 Email: kuznicki@browerpiven.com MORGAN GROUP: Faces "Bobiak" Suit Over FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Douglas L. Bobiak, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. The Morgan Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00142 (W.D. N.C., March 17, 2017), seeks payment of unpaid wages, overtime compensation, overtime bonus premium and statutory penalties for Plaintiff and any similarly situated hourly employees who worked for The Morgan Group, Inc. The suit was filed over the Defendant's policy and pattern or practice of time shaving from Plaintiff's total number of hours worked. In other words, Defendant regularly paid Plaintiff for less time than what was recorded on his time cards, including but not limited to weeks during which he worked overtime, says the complaint. Plaintiff Bobiak was employed by Defendant as an hourly employee. Defendant offers multifamily development, construction and property management operating a multifamily housing in North Carolina, California, Florida, Missouri and Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Michelle Gessner, Esq. The Law Offices of Michelle Gessner, PLLC 409 East Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28203 Tel: (704) 234-7442 Email: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com - and - Philip J. Gibbons, Jr. Phil Gibbons Law, P.C. 15720 Brixham Hill Ave., Ste 280 Charlotte, NC 28277 Tel: (704) 612-0038 Email: phil@philgibbonslaw.com MORGAN PROPERTIES: "Zehm" Suit Moved to N.J. Federal Court ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled AVA ZEHM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. MORGAN PROPERTIES; MOORESTOWNE WOODS APARTMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC, doing business as MOORSETOWNE WOODS APARTMENT ASSOCIATES, LP; and NWP SERVICES CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. L 174 17, was removed from the Burlington County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-01758-NLH-KMW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Noel L. Hillman. Morgan Properties owns and manages 131 apartment communities with over 30000 apartments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lewis G. Adler, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER 26 NEWTON AVENUE WOODBURY, NJ 08096 Telephone: (856) 845 1968 E-mail: lewisadler@verizon.net The Defendants are represented by: Rachel C. Heinrich, Esq. WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A. Two Penn Center, Suite 910 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 636 4494 E-mail: rheinrich@wilentz.com MRS BPO: Faces "Estevez" Suit in Eastern District of New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO LLC. The case is entitled as Raul Estevez and Alexander Nayberg, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MRS BPO LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01594 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 21, 2017). MRS BPO is an industry leader in financial services, healthcare, cable, utilities, and telecommunication debt recovery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Igor B Litvak, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (646) 796 4905 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com MY PILLOW INC: Stamm Sues Over Fraudulent Product Promo ------------------------------------------------------- Philip Stamm, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. My Pillow, Inc. a Minnesota Corporation, a/k/a My Pillow Direct LLC, Defendant, Case No. 651472/2017 (N.Y. Sup., March 20, 2017) seeks damages, including statutory and actual damages, expenses and costs of suit, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and reasonable attorney's fees as well as restitution and all such other relief resulting from unjust enrichment, fraud, deceit and violations of New York General Business Laws. Defendant My Pillow, Inc. advertised a Buy One Get One Free promotion which it refused to honor but instead offered a discount of a lesser amount on the purchase of the same pillows. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY, McKENNA, & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0383 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Battersby" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit, Inc. The case is captioned as Richard A. Battersby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01455 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 15, 2017). Nationwide Credit, a collection agency, provides customer relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Class Action Waiver Not Discharged in Ch. 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Erik P. Kimball of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division, granted in part defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the case titled VERHONDA K. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Adv. Proc. No. 16-01244-EPK (Bankr. S.D. Fla.), relating to In re: VERHONDA K. WILLIAMS, Chapter 7, Debtor, Case No. 15-22082-EPK (Bankr. S.D. Fla.). On July 2, 2015, Verhonda K. Williams filed a voluntary petition under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Navient Solutions, LLC f/k/a Navient Solutions, Inc., was listed in the petition as a creditor holding an unsecured, nonpriority claim for student loans. On October 14, 2015, the court entered its standard order discharging the Williams of all obligations dischargeable under section 727. On April 13, 2016, Williams filed her motion to Reopen Chapter 7 Case to File Adversary Proceeding for the purpose of filing an adversary complaint against NSI seeking a determination that her scheduled student loan debt had been discharged and that NSI had violated the discharge order by attempting to collect it. On May 6, 2016, the court entered its order granting motion to reopen Chapter 7 case to file an adversary proceeding. On June 1, 2016, Williams commenced the action and in her counts I, II and III, Williams seek a determination that her scheduled student loan debt is dischargeable, a declaration to the same effect, and an order holding NSI in contempt for attempting to collect the student loan debt along with an award of damages. Williams asserts, purportedly on behalf of a putative statewide class of similarly situated persons, that her bar study loans serviced by NSI are not qualified education loans under section 523(a)(8) and, therefore, were discharged in her chapter 7 bankruptcy case. Williams next asserts that NSI violated the discharge order pursuant to section 524(a)(2) by mailing monthly statements to her and by making telephone calls to her in an attempt to collect such loans. Relying on the arbitration and class action waiver provisions contained in the two promissory notes signed by Williams, NSI filed a motion to compel arbitration. Upon consideration of the motion to compel arbitration and relevant law, Judge Kimball rules that the arbitration and class action waiver provisions contained in the notes given by the plaintiff in favor of NSI were not discharged in the plaintiff's chapter 7 bankruptcy case. Even if the plaintiff's personal obligations under the notes were discharged in her chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the arbitration and class action waiver provisions are severable from those personal obligations and, remain valid and enforceable. Judge Kimball also rules that no inherent conflict exists between the enforcement of the arbitration and class action waiver provisions and the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code provisions relied upon in counts I, II and III of plaintiff's second amended complaint. The court will enforce the arbitration and class action waiver provisions and compel arbitration of the claims presented in counts I, II and III of the second amended complaint. Finally, in light of the court's order granting in part defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, or, alternatively, to dismiss non-bankruptcy claims and granting in part motion to compel arbitration of all claims and dismiss or stay pending arbitration, which dismissed with prejudice Counts IV, V and VI of the plaintiff's second amended complaint, the motion to designate claims will be denied as moot. The adversary proceeding will be dismissed and closed, and the main chapter 7 case will be re-closed. A copy of Judge Kimball's order dated March 3, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/qrsfTy from Leagle.com. Verhonda K. Williams, Debtor, represented by Chad T. Van Horn NCB MANAGEMENT: Faces "Howard" Suit in Florida Middle District -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCB Management Services, Inc. The case is titled as Debra Howard, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. NCB Management Services, Inc., and P2 Verifications Services, LLC, doing business as Global Verification Network as successor to Redridge Verification Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17- cv-00303-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla., Mar. 15, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Brian J. Davis. NCB Management provides clients with a full-spectrum of accounts receivable management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com NEAL TRUCKING: Settlement Bid in "Poisson" Taken Under Submission ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Ronald Poisson, et al, the Plaintiffs, v. Neal Trucking, Inc., et al, the Defendants, Case No. 5:13-cv- 02241-VAP-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Virginia A. Phillips entered an order taking under submission Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. No appearance was made by defendant. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kUmXjOQ6 The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Dion-Kindem, Esq. THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 883 4900 Facsimile: (838) 883 4902 E-mail: Peter@Dion-KindemLaw.com NEVADA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Family's Suit vs. NDVS --------------------------------------------------- Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada denied defendants' motions to compel arbitration and dismiss the case Estate of Charles M. Demos, Sr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. State of Nevada, et al., Defendants, No. 2:16-cv-00324-JAD-CWH (D. Nev.). Paul C. Demos sues individually and as the heir and special administrator of the estate of his father Charles M. Demos, Sr., who died in April 2015 after contracting Legionnaires' Disease while residing at the Nevada State Veteran's Home. Paul, along with Charles Sr.'s other children, Andrew, Charles Jr., Denise, and Mark Demos, bring this putative class action against the State of Nevada on relation of the Nevada Department of Veterans Services (NDVS), which operates the VA facility. Judge Dorsey dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend plaintiffs' state-law claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, training, and supervision, breach of contract, to the extent it was brought by plaintiffs as third-party beneficiaries, and plaintiffs' sole federal-law Section 1983 claim as pleaded against McBride only, leaving intact only plaintiffs' claims for negligence, wrongful death, and breach of contract on behalf of Charles Sr.'s estate. Plaintiffs timely filed a second-amended complaint, dropping McBride as a defendant and the Section 1983 claim against him, and asserting eight state-law claims for relief, negligence, wrongful death, elder abuse, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, training, and supervision, breach of contract, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The NDVS moves to stay the case and compel arbitration or, alternatively, to dismiss all claims under FRCP. Judge Dorsey denied without prejudice defendants' motions and remanded the case back to the Eight Judicial District Court. Plaintiffs' amended complaint includes only state-law claims and such claims raise novel and complex issues of state law, Judge Dorsey decline to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. A copy of Judge Dorsey's order dated February 28, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/WuidUX from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Martin A. Little, Esq. Taylor L. Waite, Esq. Michael R. Ernst, Esq. JOLLEY URGA WIRTH WOODBURY & STANDISH 3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy Las Vegas, NV 89169 Tel: 702-699-7500 State of Nevada, Defendant, represented by: D. Randall Gilmer, Esq. Steven Shevorski, Esq. Nevada Office of the Attorney General 555 E Washington Ave # 3900 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Tel: 702-486-3420 NEW ORLEANS, LA: Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ALANA CAIN, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-04479- SSV-JCW (E.D. La.), the Hon. Sarah S. Vance entered an order: 1. denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, where motion may be reurged on the schedule to be imposed by the Court; 2. directing parties to exchange proposed stipulated facts as to Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 on or before March 24, 2017, if the parties are unable to agree to stipulated facts, they shall promptly consult with Judge Wilkinson to resolve any disputes; and 3. directing parties to file cross-motions for summary judgment on Counts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 on or before May 23, 2017, where these motions shall not exceed 50 pages, and Judicial Defendants and the Sheriff shall file a single, joint motion; responses to these motions shall be submitted on or before June 13, 2017; replies shall be submitted on or before June 27, 2017; responses shall not exceed 50 pages, and replies shall not exceed 25 pages; all submissions by defendants shall be filed jointly; and the motions shall be deemed submitted on June 27, 2017. The operative complaint in this case is the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The remaining claims and defendants are those not excluded in the Court's order regarding plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. All discovery and motions practice, except as outlined in this order, is stayed pending further order. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zdaSCh5f NEXT CLEANERS: Faces "Dey" Suit in Southern District of New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Next Cleaners, LLC. The case is captioned as Zenith Dey and Libby Abesamis, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Kam Saifi; Next at 808 Columbus, Inc.; Next Cleaners, LLC; Next Cleaners NY1, LLC; George Inakavadze; and Aleksey Berezov, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 02049 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 21, 2017). Next Cleaners provides dry cleaning and laundry services.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. NICOLET RESTAURANT: Meyers Appeals Ruling to Supreme Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Meyers, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioner v. Nicolet Restaurant of De Pere, LLC, Case No. 16-1113 (U.S., Mar. 1, 2016), is a petition for a writ of certiorari from a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Appellate Case No. 16-2075 (7th Cir., Dec. 13, 2016).[BN] This Petition is the second of two that Meyers has filed with the Supreme Court seeking a writ of certiorari on the question of whether a plaintiff who receives an improperly truncated customer receipt in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") has Article III standing to bring suit for statutory damages. In Meyers v. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, 836 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2016) ("Meyers I"), Meyers brought a claim for statutory damages after he received three computer-generated customer receipts which displayed more than the last five digits of his credit card number, as well as the card's expiration date, from retail establishments owned by the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin. The underlying case ("Meyers II") similarly arises out of an improperly truncated customer receipt. On February 10, 2015, Meyers received from Nicolet Restaurant of De Pere, LLC ("Nicolet") a computer-generated customer receipt which displayed the last four digits of Meyers's credit card number in addition to the card's expiration date. On April 14, 2015, Meyers filed suit against Nicolet in the district court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for Nicolet's failure to properly truncate Meyers's credit card information on his customer receipt pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681c(g)(1). Meyers brought his cause of action individually and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals and entities. Meyers did not allege any actual damages suffered as a result of Nicolet's failure to truncate the receipt, but rather, Meyers sought statutory damages for Nicolet's willful FACTA violation pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681n(a)(1)(A). At the same time that Meyers filed his complaint, Meyers also filed a motion for class certification, in which he sought to certify the class of customers to whom Nicolet gave the non-compliant receipts. Nicolet did not file a motion to dismiss Meyers's complaint or otherwise argue that Meyers lacked standing under Article III at any time before the district court. Rather, on December 18, 2015, Nicolet filed a memorandum in opposition to class certification, arguing that individual issues so predominated the case, such that the putative class failed to meet the commonality and typicality requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and the predominance and superiority requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). On April 1, 2016, the district court denied Meyers's motion for class certification. The district court held that the putative class met the commonality and typicality requirements of Fed. R. Cir. P. 23(a) but did not meet the predominance and superiority requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). App. 18-34. The Seventh Circuit held that Meyers lacked standing under Article III, vacated the judgment of the district court, and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court found "that without a showing of injury apart from the statutory violation, the failure to truncate a credit card's expiration date is insufficient to confer Article III standing." The Seventh Circuit expressly rejected the argument that Congress created a substantive right in FACTA, the violation of which -- without more -- amounts to a concrete injury. The court held that "whether the right is characterized as 'substantive' or 'procedural,' its violation must be accompanied by an injury in fact," and "[a] violation of a statute that causes no harm does not trigger a federal case." Additionally, the Seventh Circuit did not believe that Meyers's improperly truncated receipt put him in any risk of harm, finding it "hard to imagine how the expiration date's presence could have increased the risk that [Meyers's] identity would be compromised[]" because "Meyers discovered the violation immediately[,]" and "nobody else every saw the non-compliant receipt." The court further suggested that FACTA's requirement to truncate a credit or debit card's expiration date from a customer receipt is actually ineffective at preventing identity theft, citing to a Congressional finding that truncation of the card's number alone "prevents a potential fraudster from perpetrating identity theft or credit card fraud[]" without having to additionally truncate the card's expiration date. The Seventh Circuit expressed its concern over what it considered an "abuse of FACTA lawsuits," and believed that "Congress sought to limit FACTA lawsuits to consumers 'suffering from any actual harm.'" Petitioner is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES PC 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440 0020 NIMBLE STORAGE: "Parshall" Sues Over Sale to Hewlett Packard ------------------------------------------------------------ Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nimble Storage, Inc., Suresh Vasudevan, Varun Mehta, Frank Calderoni, James J. Goetz, William Jenkins Jr., Jerry M. Kennelly, William J. Schroeder, Bob Kelly, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and Nebraska Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01538 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with defendants from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of Nimble Storage, Inc. by Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, and rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger. The suit also seeks rescissory damages, costs of suit, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Pursuant to the terms of the merger, shareholders of Nimble Storage will receive $12.50 in cash for each share of common stock. Defendants have allegedly locked up the deal and have precluded other bidders from making successful competing offers for the company as well as failed to disclose the company's financial projection from its advisers for the shareholders to make an educated vote on the merger. Nimble Storage develops flash storage platforms that provides a single consolidation architecture with common data services across a portfolio of flash and adaptive flash arrays with integrated support and service offerings, enabling IT organizations to optimize performance, capacity and cost for all applications running across the data center using a cloud-based management software. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 (302) 295-5310 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 291-2420 Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Certification of Two Classes Sought -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled REBECCA COURTRIGHT and RAPHAEL SAYE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others, the Plaintiff, v. O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC., CSK AUTO, INC., d/b/a O'REILLY AUTO PARTS, and O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-00134-DGK (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying classes: Disclosure Class: "all employees or prospective employees of Defendants who executed an employment application containing the Defendants' First Advantage FCRA disclosure form and with respect to whom Defendants procured or caused to be procured a consumer report in connection with their application for employment during the period March 4, 2012 through March 31, 2014"; and Adverse Action Class: "all employees or prospective employees of Defendants with respect to whom Defendants procured or caused to be procured a consumer report in connection with their application for employment who were subjected to an adverse action during the period March 4, 2012 through the date of certification". The Plaintiffs further move the Court to appoint Rebecca Courtright, Raphael Saye and Juan Estrada as class representatives and their counsel, Brown & Associates LLC, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Capstone Law APC as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9nuXjkUe The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jayson A. Watkins Charles Jason Brown BROWN & WATKINS LLC 301 S. US 169 Hwy Gower, MO 64454 Telephone: (816) 505 4529 Facsimile: (816) 424 1337 E-mail: brown@brownandwatkins.com watkins@brownandwatkins.com - and - Mark S. Greenstone, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310 201 9150 Facsimile: 310 432 1495 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com - and - Raphael Saye, Esq. Jordan Lurie, Esq. Robert K. Friedl, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556 4811 Facsimile: (310) 943 0396 OCWEN LOAN: Court Partially Grants Bid to Dismiss FCRA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Miranda M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted in part defendant's motions to dismiss the case titled IN RE OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC LITIGATION, Lead Case No. 3:16-cv-00200-MMD-WGC, Member Case No. 3:16-cv-00483-MMD-WGC, Case No. 3:16-cv-00498-MMD-WGC., 3:16-cv-00603-MMD-WGC (D. Nev.) Plaintiffs Christopher Marino, Dionne Horton, Henry L. Farrin, Jr. Joshua E. Hardin and Kristen J. Hardin each brought a class action lawsuit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act against Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC based on almost identical factual allegations. Each plaintiff discharged in bankruptcy a prior loan that had been serviced by Ocwen, yet Ocwen continued, and possibly still continues, to obtain plaintiffs' credit information from credit reporting agencies without a legally permissible purpose and without plaintiffs' authorization as required under the FCRA. All plaintiffs allege that Ocwen obtained their credit reports under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, each willful violations under the statute. The court issued a minute order on February 10, 2017, requesting supplemental briefing in light of a recently decided Ninth Circuit opinion in Syed v. M-I, LLC, 846 F.3d 1024(9th Cir. 2017), that addressed procedural standing and statutory damages under the FCRA. In addition, the parties have filed several motions to supplement. Ocwen filed a motion to dismiss in each case and asserted that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because a legally impermissible pull of an individual's credit report does not give rise to a concrete injury or actual damages that would give rise to Article III standing. Judge Du ordered that defendant's motions to dismiss in Marino, Farrin, and Hardin are denied. Defendant's motion to dismiss in Horton is granted only with respect to the negligent noncompliance claim. Horton may file an amended complaint within thirty days of the order to cure the negligent noncompliance claim under Section 1681o to the extent Horton can allege a concrete injury and/or actual damages sustained as a result of Ocwen's alleged negligent, impermissible pull of his credit report. Regardless of amendment, all other claims across all four cases will proceed. The three additional motions to supplement are granted. The court finds that plaintiffs have satisfied Article III's standing requirements with respect to their claim for willful noncompliance under the FCRA. The statute explicitly provides a statutory damage amount to quantify a harm that is often unquantifiable, the harm to consumer privacy and confidentiality that results when a prior lender continues to access a consumer's personal information without any genuine reason for doing so. Plaintiffs in Horton have not demonstrated any actual damages to meet the requirement of standing to assert a claim for negligent noncompliance with the FCRA. A copy of Judge Du's order dated March 3, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/hLcUxM from Leagle.com. Christopher Marino, Plaintiff, represented by Scott Craig Borison -- borison@legglaw.com -- at Legg Law Firm LLP; Christopher P. Burke -- attycburke@charter.net -- at Christopher P. Burke, Esq. and Associates Pernell D Hobley, Deaonca S. Bouguere and Dionne Horton, Plaintiff, represented by Mitchell D. Gliner -- at Law Office of Mitchell D. Gliner; Nicholas L. Walton -- Sylvia A. Goldsmith -- at Goldsmith & Associates Henry L. Farrin, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Peter Albert Holland -- at The Holland Law Firm, P.C.; Roger B. Phillips -- at Phillips Law Office, PLLC; Scott Craig Borison -- borison@legglaw.com -- at Legg Law Firm LLP; Christopher P. Burke -- attycburke@charter.net -- at Christopher P. Burke, Esq. and Associates Joshua E. Hardin and Kristen J. Hardin, Plaintiffs, represented by Emanwel Josef Turnbull -- Peter Albert Holland -- at The Holland Law Firm, P.C.; Scott Craig Borison -- borison@legglaw.com -- at Legg Law Firm LLP Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Harrison Scott Kelly -- scott.kelly@troutmansanders.com -- John C. Lynch -- john.lynch@troutmansanders.com -- Michael Edward Lacy -- michael.lacy@troutmansanders.com -- Ethan Ostroff -- ethan.ostroff@troutmansanders.com -- at Troutman Sanders LLP; Gary E. Schnitzer -- gschnitzer@kssattorneys.com --Jordan P. Schnitzer -- jschnitzer@ksjattorneys.com -- at Kravitz, Schnitzer & Johnson, Chtd. OLYMPUS INSURANCE: "Warren" Suit Moved M.D. Fla. Federal Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Joseph Warren, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Olympus Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. CA17-0045, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in and for St. Johns County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00297-HLA-JBT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Senior Judge Henry Lee Adams, Jr. Olympus Insurance Company provides homeowners and rental property insurance products in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave Ste. 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail:bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Juan C. Lopez-Campillo, Esq. CRUSER & MITCHELL, LLP 200 E Robinson St., Suite 1140 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 730 3535 Facsimile: (407) 730 3540 E-mail: jlopez@cmlawfirm.com OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Faces "Lobosco" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Optio Solutions LLC. The case is captioned as Patricia A. Lobosco and Michelina Hoffman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Optio Solutions LLC, doing business as Qualia Collection Services, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 01564 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 20, 2017). Optio Solutions is a full service collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. PENNSYLVANIA: "Murphy" Suit Filed Against Disciplinary Counsel -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The case is styled as ROBERT J. MURPHY, ESQUIRE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL; PAUL J. KILLIAN, CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MICHAEL GOTTSCH IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA; JANES G. PENNY, BOARD CHAIR IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; and JULIA FRANKSTON-MORRIS ESQ., BOARD SECRETARY, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01239-EGS (E.D. Pa., Mar. 20, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Edward G. Smith. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel protects the public and the courts from unethical conduct by D.C.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. PENNYMAC CORP: "McPherson" Seeks Unpaid OT Pay, Missed Breaks ------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie McPherson, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated non-exempt former and current employees, Plaintiffs, v. Pennymac Corporation, Pennymac Financial Service, Inc., Pennymac Loan Services, Inc., National Mortgage Acceptance Private Company, LLC, Corporation and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC654666, (Cal. Super., March 21, 2017), seeks damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, damages for unpaid wages, restitution of all unpaid wages and other monies owed, reasonable attorney's fees, interest, punitive damages and such other relief under the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Pennymac is a national home loan lender and servicer. Pennymac Financial Service, Inc. and Private national are engaged in the service of home loan lending. Defendants jointly own, manages and/or operate numerous Mortgage and Lending offices throughout the United States, California and Southern California where McPherson is a loan processor and home loan specialist at their Los Angeles location. Plaintiff claims to be denied 30-minute meal breaks and worked off-the-clock. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Sweeney, Esq. THE SWEENEY LAW FIRM, APC 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 500 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (323) 486-2508 Facsimile: (747) 998-1201 PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Lewis" Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims Bureau Inc. The case is entitled as Jodiann Lewis, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Professional Claims Bureau Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17- cv-01427 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 14, 2017). Professional Claims provides receivable collection and management services. The Company offers insurance follow-up, credentialing, and skip tracing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Igor B Litvak, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (646) 796 4905 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com RASH CURTIS: "Vidrio" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Vidrio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rash Curtis & Associates, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 1:17- at-00238, (E.D. Cal., March 20, 2017), seeks actual damages, statutory damages for willful and negligent violations, costs and reasonable attorney's fees, and such other and further relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Rash Curtis & Associates is a debt collection company trying to collect a debt from Vidrio using an automatic telephone dialing system without her expressed permission. 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 REMINGTON ARMS: Court Granted Certification of Class & Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned IAN POLLARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, LLC, et al. the Defendants, Case No. 4:13-CV-00086-ODS (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Ortrie D. Smith entered an order: 1. granting parties' joint motion for final settlement approval; 2. certifying case for settlement purposes, as a class action with the subclasses defined as: Settlement Class A: Class A(1) - Class Representatives Moodie and Waterman: "all current owners of Remington Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, and 673 firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that utilizes a trigger connector. Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the United States or its territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over the action and members of their families; (c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours and Company, and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates (the "Trigger Connector Class"); Class A(2) - Class Representative Delperdang: "all current owners of Remington Model 710, 715, and 770, firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that utilizes a trigger connector. Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the United States or its territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over the action and members of their families; (c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours and Company, and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates (the "Trigger Connector Class"); Class A(3) - Class Representatives Otis and Keesy: "all current owners of Remington Model 600, 660, and XP-100 firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that utilizes a trigger connector. Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the United States or its territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over the action and members of their families; (c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours and Company, and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates (the "Trigger Connector Class"); Class A(4) - Class Representative Barbre: "all current owners of Remington Model 721, 722, and 725 firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that utilizes a trigger connector. Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the United States or its territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over the action and members of their families; (c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours and Company, and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates (the "Trigger Connector Class"); Settlement Class B: Class B(1) - Class Representatives Brown, Winterburn, Hardaway, Pollard, Anderson, Corsi, and Massie: "all current owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven rifles containing an XMark Pro trigger mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006, to April 9, 2014, who have not participated in the voluntary X-Mark Pro product recall. Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the United States or its territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over the action and members of their families; (c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours and Company, and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates (the "X-Mark Pro Class")"; and Class B(2) - Class Representatives Pollard, Anderson, Corsi, and Massie: "all current and former owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven rifles who replaced their rifle's original Walker trigger mechanism with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006, to April 9, 2014. Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the United States or its territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over the action and members of their families; (c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours and Company, and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates (the "X-Mark Pro Class"); 3. declaring settlement agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate; 4. incorporating terms of the Fourth Amended Settlement Agreement as the Order of this Court; 5. overruling all objections to the settlement; 6. appointing Plaintiffs Moodie, Waterman, Delperdang, Otis, Keesy, Barbre, Brown, Winterburn, Hardaway, Pollard, Anderson, Corsi, and Massie as class representatives; 7. appointing Richard Arsenault, Charles Schaffer, Eric Holland, and W. Mark Lanier as class counsel; 8. excluding Vincent Agnelli Jr., Leon Baily, Mike Blair, Carol Bonham, Leonard Bonham, David Harris Jr., John Hoober, Ronson Ibarra, Brad Sisneros, Timothy Tomlinson, and David Wight from the settlement; 9. appointing Angeion as the class action settlement administrator to perform the duties assigned to it in the settlement agreement; 10. approving Plaintiffs' application for fees and expenses in the amount of $12.5 million; 11. approving Plaintiffs' request for costs and expenses in the amount of $474,892.75 (that amount shall be subtracted from the $12.5 million awarded to class counsel); 12. granting Plaintiffs' request for service awards to class representatives in the amount of $2,500 each; and 13. directing Defendants to publish a copy of the Order on the Settlement Website. Pursuant to the terms of the Fourth Amended Settlement Agreement, the Court retains jurisdiction over the parties, including the settlement classes, in matters relating to the administration, consummation, validity, enforcement, and interpretation of the settlement agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the matter is dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GkQeCLvJ REXALL SUNDOWN: "Dube" Sues Over Gummie Products' False Ad ---------------------------------------------------------- Briana Dube, Plaintiff, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01510 (E.D. N.Y., March 17, 2017), alleges that the Defendant's "Sundown Natural Adult Gummies" Products are not in fact "Natural", but rather contain synthetic ingredients. Defendant manufactures, sells and distributes the Products using a marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims that appeal to health conscious consumers, i.e. that its Products are "Natural". However, Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive and misleading because the Products contain synthetic ingredients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. Reese LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Tel: (212) 643-0500 Fax: (212) 253-4272 Email: mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Joseph Lipari, Esq. Adam Gonnelli, Esq. The Sultzer Law Group P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Tel: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 - and - Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq. Amy E. Boyle, Esq. Halunen Law 1650 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 605-4098 Fax: (612) 605-4099 Email: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com boyle@halunenlaw.com RUSHMORE LOAN: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Deferred ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Randolph Sellers, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated and TABETHA SELLERS, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-01106-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Timothy J. Corrigan entered an order deferring ruling on Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court wants to hear oral argument on Defendant Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment and make a determination before it considers Plaintiffs Randolph and Tabetha Sellers' Motion for Class Certification. Therefore, Rushmore's Motion for Summary Judgment is set for an in-person hearing on March 30, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. before the undersigned in the United States Courthouse, Courtroom 10D, 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8cHZdKsH SANDOZ INC: Rochester Drug Sues Over Overpriced Amitryptyline ------------------------------------------------------------- Rochester Drug Cooperative Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sandoz, Inc., Mylan, Inc., Mylan Pharamaceuticals, Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01300, (E.D. Pa., March 22, 2017), seeks to recover treble damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from overpricing of amitryptyline hydrochloride tablets in violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. Amitryptyline hydrochloride is an anti-depressant used in the treatment of migraines and nerve pain. Plaintiff claims to have purchased it at inflated prices. Rochester Drug Cooperative Inc. is a stock corporation existing under the Ney York Cooperative Corporations Law. Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Hawthorne, New York. It is an owned subsidiary of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. Sandoz, Inc., is a Colorado corporation with its principal place of business in Princeton, New Jersey. It deals in generic pharmaceuticals and bio-similars. Mylan Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business at 1000 Mylan Blvd., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a West Virginia corporation with its principal place of business at TSl Chestnut Ridge Road, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505. Plaintiff is represented by: Dianne M. Nast, Esq. Erin C. Burns, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Tel: 215-923-9300 Fax: 215-923-9302 Email: dnast@nastlaw.com ebums@nastlaw.com - and - David F. Sorensen, Esq. Nick Urban, Esq. Zachary Kaplan, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Email: dsorensen@bm.net nurban@bm.net zcaplan@bm.net - and - Peter Kohn, Esq. Joseph T. Lukens 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 600 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Tel: (215) 277-5770 Fax: (215) 277-5771 Email: pkohn@faruqilaw.com jlukens@faruqi.com - and - Barry S. Taus, Esq. Kevin Landau, Esq. Archana Tamoshunas, Esq. TAUS CEBULASH & LANDAU LLP 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204 New York, NY 10038 Tel: (212) 931-0704 Email: btaus@tcllaw.com kiandau@tcllaw.com atamoshunas@tcllaw.com SANTA BARBARA, CA: Faces "Byrne" Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Santa Barbara Hospitality Services, Inc. The case is styled as Lauren Byrne, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Santa Barbara Hospitality Services, Inc.; The Spearmint Rhino Companies Worldwide, Inc.; Spearmint Rhino Consulting Worldwide, Inc.; and Santa Barbara Hospitality Services, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00527 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 21, 2017). The Defendant is doing business in hospitality services industry. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. SANTA BARBARA, CA: Brislane Seeks to Certify 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 moves the court to certify a class of: "persons who, as inmates, were forced to sleep on the floors of the Santa Barbara County jails without bunks". The Plaintiff is a member of the discrete class of persons whose defining characteristic is that they were forced to reside and sleep on the floors at the SBCJ jails by defendants between August 11, 2012 and the present. The class potentially contains over 1,000 members, and the class is so numerous so that joinder of all members is impracticable, and also, because only defendants know the names of all of the members of class, and defendants are the only persons who have information sufficient to identify all the members of class, it is impracticable to join all the members of the class in this action. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mecMpHnr 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 E-mail: mrygmn@msn.com SENTRY CREDIT: Faces "Riccio" Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sentry Credit, Inc. The case is entitled as MAUREEN RICCIO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SENTRY CREDIT, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:17-cv-01773-BRM-TJB (D.N.J., Mar. 15, 2017). Sentry Credit is collection recovery specialists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227 5900 Facsimile: (973) 244 0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com SEVERN MANAGEMENT: "Phillpotts" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Phillpotts, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. Severn Management Company and Arthur W. Edwards, Jr., Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-00789 (D. Md., March 22, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. Defendant manages properties throughout Maryland, Delaware and Virginia, ranging from typical apartment buildings to senior living facilities. Severn hired Plaintiff to work as property manager for their Fairspring Apartments, a retirement home. The complaint asserts that Phillpotts has not received compensation reflecting the prescribed overtime wage rate for hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek, failing to compensate her for these additional hours. Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin L. Davis III, Esq. The Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: (410) 244-7005 Fax: (410) 244-8454 Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com SIRIUS XM: Faces "Buchanan" Suit over TCPA Violations ----------------------------------------------------- THOMAS BUCHANAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00728-D (N.D. Tex., Mar. 13, 2017), seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief as a result of Defendant's violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The Plaintiff is one of the millions of consumers who have listed telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Nonetheless, he has received numerous telemarketing sales calls on his Residential Land Line made by, or on behalf of, Defendant. Sirius is an American broadcasting company that provides three satellite radio and online radio services operating in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Deola T. Ali, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120 Galleria Tower I Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 554 2377 Facsimile: (888) 995 3335 E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com jarrett@hughesellzey.com Deola@hughesellzey.com - and - Henry A. Turner, Esq. TURNER LAW OFFICES, LLC 403 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 207 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 378 6274 E-mail: hturner@tloffices.com - and - Aaron Siri, Esq. Mason Barney, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, New York 10166 Telephone: (212) 532 1091 E-mail: aaron@sirillp.com - and - Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com Telephone: (312) 419 1008 - and - Mark A. Alexander, Esq. MARK A. ALEXANDER P.C. 5080 Spectrum, Suite 850E Addison, TX 75001 Telephone: (972) 364 9700 Facsimile: (972) 239 2244 E-mail: mark@markalexanderlaw.com SKF USA: Certification of Direct Purchaser Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit Re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:12-cv-00501-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of: "all individuals and entities that purchased Bearings in the United States from one or more of the Defendants, SKF USA Inc., or their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, or joint ventures, from and including April 1, 2004 through December 31, 2015. Excluded from the class are Defendants, SKF USA Inc., and their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and joint ventures. Further, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs request that Plaintiffs be certified as class representatives, and that Class Counsel be appointed pursuant to Rule 23(g). In support of this motion, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs rely upon the accompanying brief, which is incorporated by reference". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rzNLX6Fb The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com whoese@kohnswift.com dabrahams@kohnswift.com - and - Eugene A. Spector, Esq. William G. Caldes, Esq. Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496 0300 E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com bcaldes@srkw-law.com jjagher@srkw-law.com - and - David H. Fink, Esq. Darryl Bressack, Esq. Nathan J. Fink, Esq. FINK & ASSOCIATES LAW 38500 Woodward Ave, Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971 2500 E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com nfink@finkandassociateslaw.com - and - Steven A. Kanner, Esq. William H. London, Esq. Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632 4500 E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com wlondon@fklmlaw.com mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com - and - Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Randall B. Weill, Esq. Jonathan G. Mermin, Esq. Michael S. Smith, Esq. PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIEVAU & PACHIOS LLP One City Center, P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112 Telephone: (207) 791 3000 E-mail: ghansel@preti.com rweill@preti.com jmermin@preti.com msmithl@preti.com - and - M. John Dominguez, Esq. David A. Young, Esq. Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 204 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515 1400 E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com dyoung@cohenmilstein.com mruan@cohenmilstein.com - and - Solomon B. Cera, Esq. Thomas B. Bright, Esq. Pamela A. Markert, Esq. CERA LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105-2835 Telephone: (415) 777 2230 E-mail: scera@cerallp.com tbright@cerallp.com pmarkert@cerallp.com SMX LLC: Former Delivery Driver's Suit Remanded to State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Andre Birotte, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted plaintiff's motion to remand the case ANGELA RWOMWIJHU, Plaintiff, v. SMX, LLC., AMAZON.COM, LLC., Defendants, Case No. CV 16-08105-AB (PJWx) (C.D. Cal.) to the Los Angeles Superior Court. Angela Rwomwijhu is a former delivery driver for defendants Amazon.com and SMX, LLC. Defendants state SMX is organized under the laws of and has its principal place of business in Illinois, and that its only member is TrueBlue Services, Inc., which both is incorporated in and has its principal place of business in Washington. On the other hand, Amazon and its members are all organized under the laws of Delaware and have their principal places of business in Washington. On September 20, 2016, Rwomwijhu on behalf of herself and the class, filed a class action complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, and alleged that defendants: (1) failed to pay minimum wages for all hours worked in violation of Labor Code sections 1194 and 1197; (2) failed to provide overtime pay in violation of Labor Code section 510; (3) failed to provide meal and rest periods in violation of Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; (4) failed to reimburse plaintiff and putative class members for necessary expenditures in violation of Labor Code section 2802; (5) failed to provide accurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code section 226; (6) failed to pay wages upon discharging employees in violation of Labor Code sections 201-204; and (7) violated California's Unfair Competition Law under Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. Plaintiff also seeks an accounting. Defendants filed a notice of removal asserting that the Central District of California has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. Judge Birotte held that based on plaintiff's complaint and the evidence provided by defendants, the court calculates an amount in controversy of $437,450 for plaintiff's wage statement claims, $1,065,250 in statutory penalties associated with those claims, $1,149,978 for plaintiff's claims for late payment under Labor Code section 203, $426,100 under Labor Code section 210, and attorneys' fees in the amount of $769,694.50. Adding these numbers together, the court calculates a total of $3,848,472.50 in controversy. The amount is less than CAFA's $5,000,000 minimum and the court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims. Defendants have not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in the case exceeds $5,000,000. Judge Birotte granted plaintiff's motion to remand and the case is remanded to Los Angeles County Superior. A copy of Judge Birotte's order dated March 3, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/uqo9Fd from Leagle.com. Angela Rwomwijhu, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald A. Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- William Bradford Richards, Jr. -- bill@consumersadvocates.com -- Beatrice Skye Resendes -- at Law Offices of Ronald A Marron APLC; SMX, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amelia D. Winchester -- awinchester@ongaropc.com -- David R. Ongaro -- dongaro@ongaropc.com -- at Ongaro PC Amazon.com, LLC, Defendant, represented by John S. Battenfeld -- john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Christopher J. Banks -- christopher.banks@morganlewis.com -- Marina Cristine Gruber -- marina.gruber@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP SPECTRUM SOFTWARE: Class Certification Sought in Spennetta Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned SPENNETTA FAMILY CARE CHIROPRACTIC, S.C., on behalf of plaintiff and the class defined below, the Plaintiff, v. SPECTRUM SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., FRANK & ISRAEL, LTD., doing business as FIRMS and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00190 (W.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify classes: For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act: "(a) all persons with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants Spectrum Software Solutions, Inc., or FIRMS promoting their goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. section 227. An opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. section 227 means: (i) on the first page of the fax (ii) that states that the recipient may make a request to the sender not to send any future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine (iii) that states that failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by the Federal Communications Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that provides instructions on how to submit an opt out request and (v) that includes a domestic contact telephone and facsimile machine number and a cost-free mechanism for the recipient to transmit such a request to the sender that permit a request to be made at any time on any day of the week; and For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of Wisc. Stats. Sec.100.20, and Count III, alleging conversion "(a) all persons with Wisconsin fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date six years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants Spectrum Software Solutions, Inc., or FIRMS promoting their goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. section 227. An opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. section 227 means: (i) on the first page of the fax (ii) that states that the recipient may make a request to the sender not to send any future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine (iii) that states that failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by the Federal Communications Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that provides instructions on how to submit an opt out request and (v) that includes a domestic contact telephone and facsimile machine number and a cost-free mechanism for the recipient to transmit such a request to the sender that permit a request to be made at any time on any day of the week; The Plaintiff further asks the Court that it be appointed class representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. 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=shCJPkXF The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Heather Kolbus, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 SPORTS WAREHOUSE: "McDuffee" Suit Moved to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Matt McDuffee, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sports Warehouse, a California Corporation and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-02017-00001781-CU-BT-NC, 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-00512- JM-MDD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Jeffrey T. Miller.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq. COUNSELONE, PC 9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 277 9945 Facsimile: (424) 277 3727 E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Bradley Alan Chapin, Esq. RUTAN AND TUCKER LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Newport Beach, CA 92626-1931 Telephone: (714) 641 5100 Facsimile: (714) 546 9035 E-mail: bchapin@rutan.com STARBOARD GROUP: Faces "Bennett" Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Starboard Group Management Company Incorporated. The case is titled as Tashunbee Bennett, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Starboard Group Management Company Incorporated, a Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60566-CMA (S.D. Fla., Mar. 20, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.[BN] Starboard operates Wendy's quick service restaurants in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Richmond, and Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert William Murphy, Esq. 1212 SE 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 763 8660 Facsimile: (954) 763 8607 E-mail: rphyu@aol.com STELLAR RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned KATHY OLESINSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. STELLAR RECOVERY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00393-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class, appointing 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 requests that the Court stay the class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of the 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=tqdYlE4c 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 STUDEBT: "Roe" Disputes Vague Background Check ---------------------------------------------- Jane Roe, individually and on behalf of the putative class, Plaintiffs, v. Studebt; Beenverified, Inc. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC654419, (Cal. Super., March 20, 2017), seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief under California's Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, Defendant terminated Plaintiff citing her criminal history as the reason for the termination. Defendant StuDebt provided Plaintiff with a copy of her background check on said date of her termination. Said background check has a number of incomplete information about Plaintiff, lacking the date, offense, and/or disposition such as an unidentified and undated offense from an arrest log of San Bernardino Police Department, unidentified and undated offense in Riverside County Criminal Court, and an unidentified and outdated offense from Texas Department of Corrections. Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua E. Kim, Esq. A NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT 9512 S. Central Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90002 Tel: (323) 563-3575 Fax: (323) 563-3445 Email: joshua@anewwayoflife.org - and - Devin H. Fok, Esq. DHF Law, P.C. 234 E. Colorado Blvd., 8th Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Tel: (310) 430-9933 Fax: (818)484-2023 Email: devin@devinfoklaw.com SUNTRUST BANKS: "Bickerstaff" Class Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, remains pending, SunTrust Banks, 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. This case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who incurred such overdraft fees within the four years before the complaint was filed where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate. The Bank filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16, 2012, the Court entered an order holding that the Bank's arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms. The Court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on the question of whether the named plaintiff could have opted out for the putative class members. The Bank filed an appeal of this decision, but this appeal was dismissed based on a finding that the appeal was prematurely granted. On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and that motion was denied on February 19, 2014. Plaintiff appealed the denial of class certification and on September 8, 2015, the Georgia Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal. On January 4, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court heard oral argument on the appeal. On July 8, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals of Georgia and remanded the case for further proceedings. SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Underway in Company Stock Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, 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 discovery process has begun in the Company Stock Class Action. Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"). The plaintiffs sought to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan accounts from May 15, 2007 to March 30, 2011 and seek to recover alleged losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in Company stock. This case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida but was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in November 2008. On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Circuit Court") granted defendants and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which substantially similar issues are presented. On May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided that appeal in favor of The Home Depot. On March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an order remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings in light of its decision in The Home Depot case. On September 26, 2013, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision in the Circuit Court. Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which held that employee stock ownership plan fiduciaries receive no presumption of prudence with respect to employer stock plans. The Circuit Court remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings in light of Dudenhoeffer. On June 18, 2015, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The discovery process has begun. On August 17, 2016, the District Court entered an order that among other things granted certain of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. According to the Order, the class is defined as "All persons, other than Defendants and members of their immediate families, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan") at any time between May 15, 2007 and March 30, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period") and whose accounts included investments in SunTrust common stock ("SunTrust Stock") during that time period and who sustained a loss to their account as a result of the investment in SunTrust Stock." On August 1, 2016, certain non-fiduciary defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as it relates to them, which was granted by the District Court on October 5, 2016. SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in Mutual Funds Class Action Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ SunTrust Banks, 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 consolidated appeal in the Mutual Funds Class Actions remains pending. On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District Court"). On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, on June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims. On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in this action. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Company filed a motion to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted. On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with the Eleventh Circuit. On August 26, 2014, plaintiffs in the original action filed a Motion for Consolidation of Appeals requesting that the Court consider this appeal jointly with the appeal in the second action. This motion was granted on October 9, 2014 and plaintiffs filed their consolidated appeal on December 16, 2014. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Underway in "Brown et al" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, 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 discovery is ongoing in the case, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al. On June 27, 2014, the Company and certain current and former officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On September 3, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On November 12, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to stay this case until the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Tibble v. Edison International. On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tibble and held that plan fiduciaries have a duty, separate and apart from investment selection, to monitor and remove imprudent investments. After Tibble, the cases pending on appeal were remanded to the District Court. On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, consolidating all of these pending actions into one case. The Company filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint on June 6, 2016 and discovery is ongoing. SUNTRUST BANKS: Parties in "Thurmond" Reached Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, 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 parties in the case, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter. STM and Twin Rivers Insurance Company ("Twin Rivers") have been named as defendants in a putative class action alleging that the companies entered into illegal "captive reinsurance" arrangements with private mortgage insurers. More specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection of private mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure with Twin Rivers certain loans referred to them by SunTrust results in illegal "kickbacks" in the form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers. Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust enrichment to the detriment of borrowers. The matter was filed in February 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case had been stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time. SunTrust filed a motion to dismiss the Thurmond case which was granted in part and denied in part, allowing limited discovery surrounding the argument that the statute of limitations for certain claims should be equitably tolled. Thurmond had been stayed a second time pending a ruling in a similar case currently before the Third Circuit concerning the application of the statute of limitations. While the stay was lifted, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter. SUNTRUST BANKS: Settlement in "Felix" Class Suit Approved --------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, 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 court has approved the settlement in the case, Felix v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. This putative class action was filed against STM on April 4, 2016. Plaintiff alleges that STM breaches its contract with borrowers when it collects interest on FHA loans at repayment because STM fails to use an approved FHA notice form. Plaintiff also alleges that STM violates the Georgia usury statute by collecting such interest. Plaintiff attempts to bring the breach of contract claim on behalf of all borrowers and the usury claim on behalf of Georgia borrowers. Plaintiff and STM reached a settlement of the action with the class, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted preliminary approval of the settlement on September 9, 2016. The settlement terms had an insignificant impact on the Company's financial position. On February 6, 2017, the court approved the settlement, which, barring appeal, will be final in 30 days. SWEET HOME: "Jackson" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled NAKIA JACKSON, et. al, the Plaintiffs, v. SWEET HOME HEALTHCARE LLC., et. al, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16- cv-02353-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: a. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action; b. providing for the mailing of the proposed notice and consent form to all potential plaintiffs, and Defendants' cost; and c. for such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PliikCyw The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve E. Angstreich, Esq. Carolyn C. Lindheim, Esq. Amy R. Brandt, Esq. WEIR & PARTNERS LLP 1339 Chestnut Street, Suite 500 Phladelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 665 8181 Facsimile: (215) 665 8464 E-mail: sangstreich@weirpartners.com clindheim@weirpartners.com abrandt@weirpartners.com T.T.K.M. INC: "Dalbey" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ TAMARA DALBEY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. T.T.K.M., INC., a Florida Corporation, d/b/a ARBY'S, and THOMAS LUREAU, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-14086-RLR (S.D. Fla., Mar. 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week in one or more work weeks during her employment with Defendants during the three year statute of limitations period between approximately March 2014 and February 2017. However, Defendants failed to pay time and one-half wages for all of the actual overtime hours worked by Plaintiff and all other similarly situated non-exempt employees for Defendants for all of their actual overtime hours worked within the three year statute of limitations period between March 2014 and the present. The Defendant owned and operated one or more fast food restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. One Flagler 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 901 1379 Facsimile: (561) 288 9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com hsolis@workingforyou.com TELEMUNDO NETWORK: "Merchan" Sues For Overtime Pay, Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- Jairo Merchan, and other similarly-situated individuals, v. Telemundo Network Group, LLC and Jonathan Moneyhun, individually, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-10853, (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory damages and an equal amount of liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses, appropriate back pay and other benefits wrongly denied and other affirmative relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Telemundo is a Spanish-language television network where Merchan worked as a broadcasting equipment technician under Moneyhun, manager of the Technical Operations Center of Telemundo. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Faces "Cuevas" Suit Over Almondmilk Beverage -------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA CUEVAS, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. TOPCO ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, Defendant, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00462 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 13, 2017), seeks monetary, compensatory, and punitive damages, in addition to injunctive and equitable relief as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unfair methods of competition and/or unfair and deceptive practices. The Plaintiff brings this action for herself and on behalf of all persons in the United States who, at any time since four years prior to the filing of this complaint, purchased any Full Circle "Almondmilk" beverage manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by TopCo Associates, LLC. The case arises out of false, misleading, and deceptive marketing practices of Defendant's Full Circle "Almondmilk" products. The Defendant has deceptively informed and led its customers to believe that they were purchasing, for a premium price, a dairy milk alternative that is nutritionally equivalent, and even superior, to dairy milk, as defined by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. However, the Defendant's Almond Beverages significantly lack many of the essential nutrients and vitamins provided in dairy milk, which Defendant fails to disclose to and actively conceals from consumers. The Consumer demand for non-dairy milks (milk substitutes) has exponentially increased over the past decade. In fact, almond- based milk substitutes, including the Almond Beverages, experienced a 40% increase in sales between 2013 and 2014 alone, while dairy milk sales have steadily declined. By calling its Almond Beverages "milk", a term historically used to define cow's milk, Defendant has capitalized on reasonable consumers' understanding of the well-known health benefits and essential nutrients that dairy milk provides without actually providing those health benefits and essential nutrients. For example, Defendant's official website specifically touts its Almond Beverages as containing equally high levels of calcium as dairy milk. However, Defendant's Full Circle Original Unsweetened "Almondmilk" contains approximately 67% less calcium than non-fat dairy milk. Further, Full Circle Original Unsweetened "Almondmilk" contains 90% less protein, 85% less potassium, and 57% less magnesium than non-fat dairy milk. Topco is the largest American retail food GPO and the third largest private company in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Cirsch, Esq. Robert K. Friedl, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556 4811 Facsimile: (310) 943 0396 E-mail: Lee.Cirsch@capstonelawyers.com Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com TOTAL HOMECARE: "Spurlock" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Shirley Spurlock, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Total Homecare Solutions, LLC, et al, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00168-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order conditionally certifying the action as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and designating Plaintiff as representative of the following collective: "all non-owner, non-employer home health care workers who worked for Defendants from January 1, 2015 to present, and who worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks". The Plaintiff further moves the Court for an Order authorizing Plaintiff to send notices of the lawsuit to putative Collective members that will inform them of their rights and provide them with an opportunity to join the action consistent with the Proposed Notice of Collective. The case is a wage and hour lawsuit brought on behalf of home health care workers. The workers are seeking unpaid overtime wages and related damages. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9HYPwOvT The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Kimble, Esq. Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Eric Kmetz, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 651 3700 Facsimile: (513) 665 0219 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com ekmetz@msdlegal.com akimble@msdlegal.com TRANS UNION: Faces "Morris" Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans Union. The case is titled as Florence Morris, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Trans Union, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00511-BEN-AGS (S.D. Cal., Mar. 15, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Roger T. Benitez. TransUnion is an American company that provides credit information and information management services to approximately 45,000 businesses and approximately 500 million consumers worldwide in 33 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400 6808 Facsimile: (800) 520 5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: "Vance" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- Brittany Vance, Jonathan Redding, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Transworld Systems Inc., Turnstile Capital Management, LLC, and U.S. BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00225, (W.D. Tex., March 21, 2017), seeks statutory damages, actual damages, including all amounts paid on time-barred debts, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit and such other and further relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On January 10, 2017, Transworld sent Vance and Redding individual letters seeking to collect alleged student loan debts. More than four years had elapsed since plaintiffs had defaulted on the loans, and plaintiffs had not made any payments on the loans in the four years. The statute of limitations on a private student loan debt in Texas is four years, thus their respective debts are no longer judicially enforceable. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Ciment, Esq. HESTON CIMENT, PLLC 607 Park Grove Drive, Suite B Katy, TX 77450 Telephone: (713) 270-4833 Facsimile: (713) 583-9296 Email: Daniel@HestonCiment.com - and - James O. Latturner, Esq. Francis R. Greene, Esq. Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER, & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 739-4200 Fax: (312) 419-0379 Email: jlatturner@edcombs.com fgreene@edcombs.com dedelman@edcombs.com TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Joseph" Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems Inc. The case is captioned as Venessa Joseph, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Transworld Systems Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01429 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 14, 2017). Transworld is a national debt collection company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Igor B Litvak, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (646) 796 4905 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Rojas" Seeks to Certify Uber Driver Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SEBASTIAN A. ROJAS, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER LLC, RASIER-CA, LLC, RASIER-PA, LLC, RASIER-DC, LLC, RASIER-MT, LLC, AND HINTER-NM, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16- cv-23670-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "every person who drove for Uber as UberX, Uber Black or Uber SUV drivers within the United States in the applicable statute(s) of limitations and through the entry of judgment in this case (the "Collective Action Period"), and meets all of the following requirements: (a) who signed up to drive directly with Uber Tech. or a Subsidiary under their individual name, and (b) are/were paid by Uber Tech. and/or a Subsidiary directly and in his/her individual name, and (c) timely opted out of the arbitration provision contained in his/her applicable services agreement with Uber Tech. and/or a Subsidiary". The Plaintiff has sued Uber-Tech and the Subsidiaries under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), seeking inter alia, minimum wages and overtime wages for all similarly situated Uber Drivers nationwide. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ltBzt9Tt The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Myron, Esq. Gerald F. Richman, Esq. RICHMAN GREER, P.A. One Clearlake Center, Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 803 3500 Facsimile: (561) 820 1608 E-mail: grichman@richmangreer.com amyron@richmangreer.com - and - Stephen J. Schultz, Esq. MERRILL, SCHULTZ AND BENNETT, LIMITED 2240 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 501 4540 E-mail: schultz@sbemp.com - and - Thomas G. Schultz, Esq. LSRCF LAW, PLLC 1111 Brickell Ave. No. 2200 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 760 8544 E-mail: TSchultz@LSRCF.com The Defendant is represented by: Courtney B. Wilson, Esq. Jessica Travers, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Wells Fargo Center 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 400 7500 Facsimile: (305) 603 2552 E-mail: cwilson@littler.com kljackson@littler.com jtravers@littler.com UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Benchocron" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection Bureau. The case is captioned as Ari Benchocron and Raul Estevez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiffs, v. United Collection Bureau, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01595 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 21, 2017).[BN] United provides debt collection and accounts receivable management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Igor B Litvak, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (646) 796 4905 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com UNITED PARCEL: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Anfeldt" Suit ------------------------------------------------- Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case JAMIE ANFELDT, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant. No. 15 C 10401 (N.D. Ill.). Jamie Anfeldt began working in United Parcel Services, Inc., on April 1, 2014. After becoming pregnant in August 2014, plaintiff's doctor gave her a 25-pound to 30-pound lifting restriction. At the time, UPS's policy was to approve light duty accommodations only when restrictions were imposed as a result of on-the-job injuries, for employees as a result of their ADA qualifying disabilities, and for drivers who, for a variety of reasons, could not continue to drive for UPS. Anfeldt was terminated in September 2014 but was reinstated by UPS on January 2015, when UPS amended its nationwide light-duty policies to add a provision affording light duty to pregnant workers. UPS has not provided plaintiff with back pay for the few months she was out of work. Anfeldt filed a one-count complaint alleging that UPS's pre-2015 policy had a disparate impact on employees with pregnancy-related work restrictions. UPS filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted. Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint. In her amended complaint, Anfeldt alleges disparate impact and disparate treatment because of pregnancy discrimination, and seeks to proceed as a nationwide class action, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C Section 2000e et seq. Judge Alonso granted defendant's motion to dismiss, reasoning that plaintiff has not pleaded factual or statistical content to support the allegation that she and other pregnant women were denied light-duty accommodations at a statistically higher rate than non-pregnant employees, her disparate impact claim fails. Plaintiff has also alleged that it is conceivable that defendant accommodated similarly-situated non-pregnant employees, but has not sufficiently alleged that it actually did so. Plaintiff is given a final opportunity to amend her complaint. The status hearing set for March 8, 2017 is stricken and reset to March 29, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. A copy of Judge Alonso's memorandum opinion order dated March 3, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/TEgidU from Leagle.com. Jamie Anfeldt, Plaintiff, represented by: Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. Alexis D. Martin, Esq. Lorraine Teraldico Peeters, Esq. Madeline K. Engel, Esq. CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD. 224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel: 312-763-6880 United Parcel Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Allen Klages -- john.klages@quarles.com -- Gary R. Clark -- gary.clark@quarles.com -- William A. Walden -- william.walden@quarles.com -- at Quarles & Brady LLP UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Bushell" Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unitedhealth Group Inc. The case is captioned as Jamie Bushell, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Unitedhealth Group Inc., Oxford Health Plans, Inc., Oxford Health Insurance, Inc., and Oxford Health Plans (NY), Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02021 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 20, 2017). UnitedHealth is an American managed health care company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. It is 6th in the United States on the Fortune 500.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. US AIRWAYS: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Angeles-Lastimosa Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH TIMBANG ANGELES and NOE LASTIMOSA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff - Appellant, v. US AIRWAYS, INC., the Defendant - Appellee, Case No. 17-15440 (9th Cir, Mar. 14, 2016), is an appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from a lower court decision in a fraud class action, Case No. 3:12-cv-05860-CRB (N.D. Cal.) The Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 21, 2017. Transcript is due on May 12, 2017. Appellants Joseph Timbang Angeles and Noe Lastimosa's opening brief is due June 21, 2017. Appellee US Airways, Inc. answering brief is due on July 21, 2017. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff - Appellants are represented by: Arlo Garcia Uriarte LIBERATION LAW GROUP 2670 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 695 1000 Defendant - Appellee is represented by: Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq. Robert Alan Siegel, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984 8700 VIKING CLIENT: Faces "Broderick" Suit in New Jersey --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Viking Client Services, Inc. The case is entitled as MARGARET BRODERICK, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. VIKING CLIENT SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01827-JLL-SCM (D.N.J., Mar. 20, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Jose L. Linares. Viking Collection is debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507 6300 E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com VISA INC: B&R Supermarket Seeks to Certify Merchants Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned 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 seek to 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. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek to certify three subclasses of merchants from California, Florida and New York. Each of these three subclasses brings claims under their respective state's antitrust and consumer protection laws. Defendants, to enrich themselves and their issuer partners, conspired to implement and maintain an unprecedented change in the way certain payment card chargebacks are handled, while shifting billions of dollars in liability to U.S. merchants. Through this conspiracy, Defendants saddled merchants with massive costs the Networks and the Networks' issuer clients once bore. Rather than using meaningful methods to encourage adoption of EMV card technology in the United States, as they had in other countries around the world -- by, for example, providing interchange concessions or assisting merchants with acquiring chip-enabled terminals -- the Networks conspired to impose and maintain a common penalty. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nS3PHkuE The Plaintiffs are 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 VIZIO INC: Faces "Queenan" Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vizio, Inc. The case is captioned as Mark Queenan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. VIZIO, Inc., Vizio Holdings, Inc., and Vizio Inscape Technologies, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-mc-00010 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 15, 2017). Vizio is an American privately held company that develops consumer electronics. Headquartered in Irvine, California, United States, the company was founded in October 2002 as V Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. WALTER INVESTMENT: Faces "Bonomi" Securities Class Suit in Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- Emil Bonomi, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. Walter Investment Management Corporation, George M. Awad, Denmar J. Dixon and Gary L. Tillett, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00645-VMC-MAP (M.D. Fla., March 17, 2017), seeks compensatory damages against the Defendants on behalf of a class of all person other than the Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Walter stock from February 29, 2016 and March 13, 2017, both dates inclusive (the Class Period) for materially false and misleading statements during the class period. The Complaint say throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Ditech subsidiary had a material weakness in its internal control over operational processes; (ii) accordingly, the Company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Walter's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Defendant Walter is a diversified mortgage banking firm, which focuses primarily on the servicing and origination of residential loans in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP 1625 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 320 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Tel: 954-515-0123 Fax: 866-300-7367 Email: igoldstein@sfmslaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212-661-1100 Fax: 212-661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahstrom, Esq. Pomerantz LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: 312-377-1181 Fax: 312-377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Michael Goldberg, Esq. Brian Schall, Esq. Sherin Mahdavian, Esq. Goldberg Law PC 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: 1-800-977-7401 Fax: 1-800-536-0065 Email: michael@goldberglawpc.com brian@goldberglawpc.com sherin@goldberglawpc.com WELLS FARGO: Court Denied Class Certification in "Torres" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Nicole Torres et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv- 02225-PSG-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court said, "The fact that Defendant has a timekeeping system where HMCs self-report that they "did not have the opportunity" to take a compliant meal break does not in itself establish a violation of Section 226.7. In Kimoto v. McDonald's Corps., this Court recognized that "time records actually demonstrate the individual nature of the inquiry," because the Court could not infer from the reports of various employees that a company-wide policy of not authorizing meal or rest periods existed nor could the Court assume that the employees accurately recorded the timing of their breaks. Kimoto, No. CV 06-3032-PSG-FMOX, 2008 WL 4690536, at 6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2008); see also Gonzalez, 2012 WL 5473764, at 5 ("[F]rom the fact that OfficeMax upgraded its time keeping system in August 2007 to 'provide[ ] for an automatic payment of 1.0 regular hour of pay for meal periods that are either missed, or taken after five hours of work in any shift,' it does not necessarily follow that all prior missed punches are meal period violations requiring appropriate compensation. Threshold questions remain: Were meal periods actually missed, and, if so, was OfficeMax responsible?"); Brown v. Fed. Express Corp., 249 F.R.D. 580, 587 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ("But even assuming that the records are accurate, the resources that would be expended on determining the reason for missed breaks would exceed those saved by classwide determination of the number of breaks missed."). Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that her theory of recovery involves predominantly common issues that can be adjudicated on a classwide basis. Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established Rule 23's commonality requirement or that common questions predominate, the Court need not address the Rule's remaining requirements". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aAbvK5f3 WEN MEI: "Zhang" Suit Seeks Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled JIE ZHANG a/k/a Jimmy Zhang; RU HAO LIU a/k/a Jason Liu; XIU QIN LIN; HSIA SHENG CHENG; and CHEIN WEN HSIEH a/k/a Kevin Hsieh; on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WEN MEI, INC. d/b/a Hunan Dynasty; HUNAN DYNASTY AT LEVITTOWN, INC. d/b/a Hunan Dynasty; FENNY JAPANESE AND CHINESE RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a Hunan Dynasty; CHEN'S CHINESE RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a Hunan Dynasty; XIANG RONG CHEN a/k/a Kevin Chen; BAIFENG CHEN a/k/a Andy Chen; CAI FEN CHEN, CINDY CHEN, and LUQI XIE, the Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-01647- JS-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; 2. appointing Plaintiffs Chein Wen Hsieh a/k/a Kevin Hsieh, Ru Hao Liu a/k/a Jason Liu, and Xiu Qin Lin as class representatives; 3. appointing Troy Law, PLLC as class counsel; 4. permitting Plaintiffs to circulate a class action notice in Mandarin in the World Journal, a Mandarin-language newspaper in New York City for five (5) consecutive weeks; and 5. granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mq37gc1U The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762 1324 Facsimile: (718) 762 1342 WESTBRIDGE FLORIDA: "Barzydlo" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM BARZYDLO, the Plaintiff, v. WESTBRIDGE FLORIDA PROPERTIES, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00614-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla., Mar. 13, 2017), seeks to recover damages in the amount of unpaid overtime compensation owed, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). During the three-year period prior to filing this action, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. Jason M. Melton, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC One Progress Plaza 200 Central Avenue, #400 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 822 1111 Facsimile: (727) 898 2001 E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com shelley@theFLlawfirm.com kmoran@theFLlawfirm.com WILLIAM LAROQUE: "Santos" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Angel A. Santos, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. William Laroque Installers, Inc. and William Laroque, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21034, (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2017), seeks to recover, retaliatory damages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. Laroque Installers sells and installs pallet racks, conveyor systems and all kind of warehouse fixture and equipment. It also offers removal, storage and selling of used warehouse equipment. Santos worked as a technician/installer from approximately January 1998, through September 23, 2016. Plaintiff worked 10 hours daily or 50 hours weekly with 2.5 hours of lunch break automatically deducted. In addition, Plaintiff worked for many weeks in projects located out of State, rendering 68 and 70 hours weekly. All these were without overtime pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com WOODGRAIN MILLWORK: Faces "Cuik" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wage --------------------------------------------------------------- George Cuik, Plaintiff, and all similarly situated v. Woodgrain Millwork, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-21003-CMA (S.D. Fla., March 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Woodgrain has employed and currently employs several other similarly situated employees, like Plaintiff, who have not been properly paid overtime for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly, within three years from the filing of this complaint. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt employee within the meaning of the FLSA law and is entitled to overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA and Florida common law. Defendant Woodgrain manufactures moldings and turnings. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Monica Espino, Esq. Espino Law 2250 SW 3rd Avenue, 4th Floor Miami, FL 33129 Tel: (305) 704-3172 Fax: (305) 722-7378 Email: me@espino-law.com YAHOO! INC: Faces "Talukder" Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Nafiz Talukder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Yahoo! Inc., Marissa A. Mayer and Kenneth A. Goldman, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01525 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint says Defendants failed to disclose that their information security protocols were inadequate and failed to encrypt its users' personal information. A recent data breach resulted in the theft of personal user data that would foreseeably cause a significant drop in user engagement with Yahoo's websites and services. Yahoo, together with its subsidiaries, is a multinational technology company that provides a variety of internet services, including, inter alia, a web portal, search engine, Yahoo! Mail, Yahoo! News, Yahoo! Finance, advertising and fantasy sports. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com ZIVIZI INC: Faces "MacMinn" Suit in Utah ---------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zivizi Inc. The case is titled as Robert MacMinn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Zivizi Inc., a Utah corporation, and Steve Francisco, an individual, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00209-DBP (D. Utah, Mar. 21, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kay Burningham, Esq. KAY BURNINGHAM ATTORNEY AT LAW 299 S Main St Ste 1300 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 415 9404 E-mail: kay@kayburningham.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. 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 * * *