/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170413.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 13, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 74 Headlines ABUELITOS FELICES: Faces "Medina" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation AIR METHODS: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Planned Acquisition ALLIED INTERSTATE: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Reich" Suit in E.D. New York ALTEGRA HEALTH: Faces "Craig" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages AMAZON.COM: Delivery Drivers Allege Wage Violations AMERICAN CENTURY: "Wildman" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ARIZONA: Border Patrol Held in Civil Contempt Over Video Files ASAHI BEER: "Panvini" Sues Over Asahi Dry Deceptive Marketing ASSET RECOVERY: Class Certification Hearing Continued to May 24 AUROBINDO PHARMA: Falconer Alleges Glyburide Price-Fixing AUSTRALIA: Oakey Residents Warned Not to Answer Defense Survey BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over FLSA Violation BASF CATALYSTS: "Williams" Suit Moved from N.D. Ohio to D.N.J. BHC ALHAMBRA: "Zeledon" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court BLACKBERRY LTD: Former Engineers Transferred to Ford File Suit CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Faces "Shum" Wage and Hour Suit CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Settlement in "Thompson" Gets Final OK CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Bid in "Labriola" Denied CONDE NAST: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York CREATIVE AIR: Faces "Menichiello" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation DAVID GLADIEUX: "Buroff" Suit Seeks to Certify Inmates Class DIAL CORP: Bid for Amended Class Cert. in Suit Over Soap Granted DIALAMERICA MARKETING: "McKenna" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation DIRECTV LLC: Faces "Frintzilas" Suit Over NYGBL Violations DIRECT ENERGY: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in "Richards" DIRECTV LLC: Judge Will Not Decide on the Parties' Cross-Motions DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Mayor Bowser Faces "Just-Buddy" Suit DYNAMIC PET: "Brown" Sues Over Real Ham Bone For Dogs' False Ads ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Peterson" Suit in E.D. California FIREMEN'S ANNUITY: Firefighter Retirees Sue over Benefit Hike FLINT, MI: Judge Remands "Nappier" to Michigan Court of Claims FLORIDA: Class Action Aims to Restore Ex-Felons' Voting Rights FORSTER GARBUS: "Feliciano" Suit Seeks to Certify Consumers Class FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Class Certification Bid Denied in "Briggs" Suit GEO: Detained Immigrants' Class Action Over Unpaid Labor OK'd GILEAD GROUP: "Adams" Suit Seeks Certification of Class GLASSBORO, NJ: Faces Rental Discrimination Class Action GREATER HUME: Fire Victims' Class Action Opens in Supreme Court GREYSTAR REAL: California Court Dismisses "Kohler" Case HAIN CELESTIAL: "Arena" Sues BOD for Breach of Fiduciary Duties HEWLETT PACKARD: "Delman" Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y. HYUNDAI: Santa Fe Engine Stall Class Action Settlement Okayed JOS. A. BANK: "Leese" Suit Moved to New Jersey Federal Court LANNETT CO: NY Local Fund Allege Price Fixing of Levothyroxine LAS VEGAS SANDS: Faces "Kennedy" Suit over Pilots Salary LOUISIANA: Livingston Parish School Board Joins Flood Suit LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Winehouse" Suit in E.D.N.Y. MAIBEC INC: Class Certification Bid Denied in "Stern" Suit MAYNE PHARMA: Amended Class Cert. Bid Denied in Glen Ellyn Suit MIDAN REST: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement in "Manley" MILLER & STARK: Class Certification Bid in "Zolandz" Suit Nixed MINNESOTA: Sex Offenders to Bring Class Action to Supreme Court MONSANTO COMPANY: 6 Suits Filed in Del. Over Herbicide Roundup MULTICHOICE NIGERIA: Dstv Subscription Fees Increase Despite Suit MYPILLOW INC: Class Action Over BOGO Ads Pending in Oregon NATROL LLC: "Stakutis" Sues Over Biotin Supplement Labels NEW JERSEY: "Wolf" Suit Transferred from S.D.N.Y. to D.N.J. NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Jacoby & Meyers' Suit NORTHERN DYNASTY: "Schubert" Sues Over Share Price Drop OKLAHOMA: Federal Court Takeover of DHS Worst-Case Scenario OMNICARE INC: May 2 Case Management Conference Set in "Esomonu" ORANGE LAKE: Faces "Epps" Suit Over FCRA Violations in Va. PAINTING FIRM: "Robinson" Seeks Overtime Pay PAYPAL HOLDINGS: FTC Investigation into Venmo Ongoing PEOPLE'S WATER: Donaldsonville Residents File Class Action PIZZATI ENTERPRISES: "Nieto" Has Conditional Class Certification PLANET FITNESS: Court Refuses to Reconsider Prior Dismissal Order PLATINUM HOME: Faces "Severin" Suit in N.Y. Superior Court PROCTER & GAMBLE: Flushable Wipes Class Action Can Go Ahead RADIO RENTAL: Thorn Group Disputes Class Action Claims REAL TIME: Approval of $1.3MM "Tannlund" Case Settlement Sought REPUBLIC SCHOOLS: Class Action Over Spam Texts Can Proceed RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: NJ Court Grants Bid to Dismiss FDCPA Suit RICK WOLF LANDSCAPE: "Gomez" Sues for Unpaid Overtime Pay RJ AMERICAN: "Gentile" Seeks to Rescind Portfolio Transfer RUSHMORE LOAN: "Bovin" Class Certification Bid Denied SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Kellas" Suit Over Washing Machines SANTILLAN FOUNDATION: Faces "Barrera" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Romano Wants Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued SCI DIRECT: Faces "Romano" Wage and Hour Suit SIGNET JEWELERS: Faces "Mikolchak" Class Suit in TX SKYLER ELECTRIC: "Patton" Seeks OT Pay, Missed Break Premiums SLATER & GORDON: Investors File Fresh Class Action Claim SODEXO INC: "Piveronas" Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Faces "Kuckuk" Suit in Calif. State Court SUMMONS REAL CARE: "Nesterenko" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages TGI FRIDAYS: "Calabrese" Suit Seeks Certification of Two Classes TITAN SOLAR: Faces "Payton" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of TCPA TOTAL GAS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Gas Price Manipulation Suit TRUMP UNIVERSITY: California Judge OKs Class Rep Award of $15,000 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Sherman" Wage and Hour Suit UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Rimel" Suit Proceeds to Arbitration US PHYSICAL: Faces "Culhane" Securities Class Action USAA CASUALTY: MAO-MSO Recovery Sues Over MAOs Reimbursement VECTOR CAPITAL: Former Execs Lose Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit VERIZON: Faces Class Action Over Cellphone Fraudulent Charges WORTHY PARKING: "Potenzo" Sues Over Car Damage in Valet Parking * Australian Gov't Cuts Toxic Firefighting Safe Exposure Levels * "Right to Know" Bill May Impact Illinois Small Businesses ********* ABUELITOS FELICES: Faces "Medina" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIO MEDINA and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. ABUELITOS FELICES II ALF INC., LIZANDRA ALCANTARA, OMAIDA GONZALEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21291-DPG (S.D. Fla., April 5, 2017), alleges that Defendants employed several other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back three years. ABUELITOS FELICES II ALF INC. is an assisted living facility in Miami, Florida. The 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 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com AIR METHODS: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Planned Acquisition ----------------------------------------------------------- PAUL PARSHALL, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION, AARON D. TODD, C. DAVID KIKUMOTO, JOSEPH WHITTERS, RALPH J. BERNSTEIN, MARK D. CARLETON, JEFFREY A. DORSEY, JOHN J. CONNOLLY, MORAD TAHBAZ, CLAIRE M. GULMI, JESSICA GARFOLA WRIGHT, AMERICAN SECURITIES LLC, ASP AMC INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC., and ASP AMC MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00383-UNA (D. Del., April 5, 2017), alleges that the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement in connection with the acquisition of AIR METHODS by American Securities LLC and its affiliates omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading, in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, American Securities commenced a tender offer, set to expire on April 20, 2017, and stockholders of Air Methods will receive $43.00 per share in cash. The complaint says (i)the Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding the Company's financial projections and the financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisors, Goldman Sachs and Centerview; (ii) the Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding potential conflicts of interest of the Company's officers and directors; (iii) the Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding potential conflicts of interest of the Company's financial advisors, and (iv) the Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding the background of the Proposed Transaction. Air Methods Corp. offers air medical transportation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Maniskas RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324-6800 - and - 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 Fax: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com E-mail: gms@rl-legal.com ALLIED INTERSTATE: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled TOMAS SUXSTORF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00449 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this 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 this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M0g03Wuk The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Shpetim Ademi, 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 ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Reich" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial, LP. The case is captioned as Jack Reich, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Alltran Financial, LP formerly known as United Recovery Systems, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01800 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 30, 2017). Alltran Financial is a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (516) 668 6945 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com ALTEGRA HEALTH: Faces "Craig" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Margo Craig, on behalf of herself and all other Employees or Former Employees of the Altegra Health Operating Company, Plaintiffs v. Altegra Health Operating Company Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00505-HGH (N.D. Ala., March 31, 2017) seeks to recover wages for each hour worked during the 40-hour work week pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked as a nurse. Defendant Alterga Health Operating Company Inc. is a healthcare data retrieval and analysis company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Teri Ryder Mastando, Esq. Eric J. Artrip, Esq. D. Anthony Mastando, Esq. Mastando & Artrip, LLC 301 Washington St., Suite 302 Huntsville, AL 35801 Tel: (256) 532-2222 Fax: (256) 513-7489 Email: teri@mastandoartrip.com artrip@mastandoartrip.com tony@mastandoartrip.com AMAZON.COM: Delivery Drivers Allege Wage Violations --------------------------------------------------- RAEF LAWSON, in his capacity as Private Attorney General Representative, the Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02515 (C.D. Cal., Apr. 6, 2017), seeks recovery of all penalties that may be imposed against Defendants under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). The case is brought as a representative action on behalf of the State of California arising out of for Defendants' wage violations against delivery drivers who have worked for Amazon in California who have contracted directly with Amazon and have been classified as independent contractors. Amazon is a commercial seller of electronic and consumer goods through its website, providing delivery service of its various products to its customers' homes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Matthew D. Carlson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994 5800 Facsimile: (617) 994 5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com mcarlson@llrlaw.com AMERICAN CENTURY: "Wildman" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Steve Wildman and Jon Borcherding, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the American Century Retirement Plan, the Plaintiffs, v. American Century Services, LLC, the American Century Retirement Plan Retirement Committee, American Century Investment Management, Inc., American Century Companies, Inc., Christopher Bouffard, Bradley C. Cloverdyke, John A. Leis, Tina S. Ussery-Franklin, Margaret E. Van Wagoner, Gudrun S. Neumann, Julie A. Smith, Margie A. Morrison, Chat Cowherd, Diane Gallagher, and John Does 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv- 737-DGK (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of: "all participants and beneficiaries of the American Century Retirement Plan at any time on or after June 30, 2010, excluding Defendants, employees with responsibility for the Plan's investment or administrative functions, and members of the American Century Services LLC Board of Directors". The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint Plaintiffs as the class representatives for the class, and Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel (Nichols Kaster, PLLP as lead class counsel and Brady & Associates as local counsel for the class). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LAvKky5N The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kai Richter, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. Jennifer K. Lee, Esq. Jacob T. Schutz, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256 3200 Facsimile: (612) 338 4878 E-mail: krichter@nka.com cengstrom@nka.com jlee@nka.com jschutz@nka.com - and - Michael F. Brady, Esq. Mark Kistler, Esq. BRADY & ASSOCIATES 10985 Cody Street, Suite 135 Overland Park, KS 66210 E-mail: brady@mbradylaw.com mkistler@mbradylaw.com ARIZONA: Border Patrol Held in Civil Contempt Over Video Files -------------------------------------------------------------- WHIO reports that a federal judge has said the Border Patrol in Arizona violated court orders by failing to properly preserve surveillance video related to a lawsuit claiming the agency detains migrants in inhumane conditions. U.S. District Judge David Bury on April 3 partially granted a motion to hold the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector in civil contempt over video files it was legally required to provide but were irreparably damaged. The court found that the Border Patrol knew about the corrupted files in June 2016, but it never notified the plaintiffs. The ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center and the Morrison and Foerster law firm filed the contempt request in January after realizing a month earlier that the files had been corrupted and could not be opened. The lawsuit originally filed in 2015 claims that the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector, which comprises most of Arizona, holds migrants in extremely filthy and cold cells. Migrants and advocates call the holding cells "hieleras," the Spanish word for "freezers." Judge Bury said in his order that the Tucson Sector "egregiously" appeared to know the extent of gaps in archived videos but failed to let the plaintiffs or the court know. He denied the plaintiff's request to appoint a third party to work with the Border Patrol on producing the videos but required the agency to turn over a list of missing footage within a week. The government will also have to pay for plaintiffs' fees spent on technical help to review and attempt to retrieve the corrupted video files. "This is a good result for us," said Nora Preciado, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. "The court recognizes that this is a pervasive problem in the inability to preserve evidence." The latest ruling comes after nearly two years of action against the Tucson Sector. Judge Bury in 2015 also sanctioned the Border Patrol over its destruction of video evidence, saying the agency's decision to do so was "at best, negligent and was certainly willful." He issued a preliminary injunction in late 2016 requiring the agency to provide clean sleeping mats and thin blankets to migrants held for longer than 12 hours and to allow them to wash or clean themselves. The Border Patrol is expected to appeal that decision. Ms. Preciado said the agency has complied with some of those requirements but not all. The advocacy groups were considering an appeal, she said. The Border Patrol does not comment on pending litigation but has defended its practices and said it is committed to the safety, security and welfare of detainees. The agency has said it provides detained migrants with basic human needs in accordance with its own policies, and that agents provide medical care, warmth, sanitation, food and water, and allows detainees to sleep. The government fought for months to prevent disclosure of photos from security cameras at the Arizona detention centers. The photos were eventually released, and they showed men jammed together under a thin thermal blanket and a woman using a concrete floor strewn with trash to change a baby's diaper. Pictures also showed rusty toilets, dirty toilet paper on the floor and a malfunctioning water fountain. The lawsuit was originally filed on behalf of three immigrants. It is now a class-action suit. ASAHI BEER: "Panvini" Sues Over Asahi Dry Deceptive Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER PANVINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ASAHI BEER U.S.A., INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01896-KAW (N.D. Cal., April 5, 2017), was brought on behalf of consumers of Asahi Super Dry beer (Asahi Dry) who have been led to believe that Asahi Dry is manufactured in and imported from Japan. The case further alleges that Defendant misleads consumers to believe that Asahi Dry is brewed by a Japanese brewery -- namely, Asahi Breweries Limited -- when in fact it is not, but rather it is brewed by Molson in Canada. Asahi also sells its Asahi Dry at prices substantially higher than other Canadian beer, despite the fact that the beer is not from Japan, but rather is brewed in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 646-0500 Fax: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Amy E. Boyle, Esq. Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq. HALUNEN LAW Charles D. Moore, Esq. 1650 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: 612.605.4098 Fax: 612.605.4099 E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com boyle@halunenlaw.com ASSET RECOVERY: Class Certification Hearing Continued to May 24 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Ronald A. Guzman entered an order in the lawsuit titled Yuridia Trujillo, the Plaintiff, v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02303 (N.D. Ill.), granting Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue class certification hearing on May 24, 2017 at 09:30 AM. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 28, 2017, the Court orders the parties to appear for an initial status hearing. All parties shall refer to and comply with Judge Guzman's requirements for the initial appearance as outlined in Judge Guzman's case management procedures, which can be found at: www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. A motion hearing set for April 6, 2017 is stricken and no appearance is required. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jz7CXIhp AUROBINDO PHARMA: Falconer Alleges Glyburide Price-Fixing --------------------------------------------------------- FALCONER PHARMACY, INC., HALLIDAY'S & KOIVISTO'S PHARMACY, RUSSELL'S MR. DISCOUNT DRUGS, INC., and SOUTHSIDE PHARMACY, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., CITRON Pharma, LLC, HERITAGE Pharmaceuticals, Inc., TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Jeffrey A. GLAZER, and Jason T. MALEK, Defendants, Case No. 2:17- cv-01543-CMR (E.D. Pa., April 5, 2017), arises from an alleged conspiracy by Defendants to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of the generic prescription medication glyburide in the United States during the period April 1, 2014 through December 31, 2015. Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. manufactures generic pharmaceutical drugs. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexandra Warren, Esq. Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Joel Davidow, Esq. Peter Gil-Montllor, Esq. Blaine Finley, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 789-3960 Fax: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com jonc@cuneolaw.com joel@cuneolaw.com pgil-montllor@cuneolaw.com bfinley@cuneolaw.com - and - Arthur Bailey, Esq. ARTHUR N. BAILEY & ASSOCIATES 111 West 2nd Street, Suite 1100 Jamestown, NY 14701 Phone: (716) 664.2967 E-mail: artlaw@windstream.net - and - Don Barrett, Esq. Katherine B. Riley, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square North P.O. Box 927 Lexington, MS 39095 Phone: (662) 834-2488 E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com AUSTRALIA: Oakey Residents Warned Not to Answer Defense Survey -------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Farmer, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that Oakey residents concerned about contaminated water in the town have been warned not to complete a Defence Department survey on their dietary habits. The Toowoomba Chronicle reports that Shine Lawyers ambassador Erin Brockovich was set to visit on April 3 to speak with residents about the survey and an upcoming class action. Shine Lawyers principal Peter Shannon said the firm asked the Defence Department for reassurances the survey responses would be used without prejudice in the future. "So far our requests have been met with silence," he said. BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Cindy R. Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bank of America National Association, a North Carolina Corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00580 (C.D. Cal., March 31, 2017) seeks to recover damages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Defendants know, should know, knew and/or should have known that Plaintiff and the other Class Members were entitled to receive accurate wages including overtime compensation and premium wages including but not limited to Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders and California Code of Regulations, but were not paid all regular and overtime wages and not paid all meal and rest period premiums due. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a "non-exempt employee" as a call center worker at its Brea location. Defendant Bank of America National Association, a North Carolina Corporation, own and operate a full service bank, which serve the general public, throughout the United States, including California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. James Hawkins APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com BASF CATALYSTS: "Williams" Suit Moved from N.D. Ohio to D.N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 similarly situated; NANCY PEASE, individually, as personal representative of the Estate of William Clark deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of others similarly 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; 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; and 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 1-200; John Doe Lawyers, 1-500; JOHN DOE, 1-500; and Third Party Defendant, BEVAN & ASSOCIATES LPA, INC., the Defendants, , Case No. 1:17-mc-00015, was transferred on April 7, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02402 to the proceeding. BASF Catalysts develops and produces environmental and process catalysts for customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jared M. Placitella, Esq. Michael Coren, Esq. COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH 127 Maple Avenue Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 747-9003 E-mail: mcoren@cprlaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq. 997 Lennox Drive, Bldg. 3 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 The Defendants are represented by: Craig Demareski, Esq. Robert E. Ryan, Esq. CONNELL FOLEY 85 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068 E-mail: rryan@connellfoley.com - and - Marc D. Haefner, Esq. WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP One Riverfront Plaza 1037 Raymond Blvd., 6th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 757 1100 E-mail: mhaefner@thewalshfirm.com - and - John A. Boyle, Esq. Kevin Marino, Esq. MARINO TORTORELLA & BOYLE PC 437 Southern Boulevard Chatham, NJ 07928-1488 Telephone: (973) 824 9300 E-mail: jboyle@khmarino.com - and - Brendan E. Little, Esq. LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP 800 Third Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 605 6282 E-mail: blittle@levylaw.com BHC ALHAMBRA: "Zeledon" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Jaime Zeledon, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BHC Alhambra Hospital, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation, Universal Health Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, UHS of Delaware, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 - 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC651028, was removed on Mar. 30, 2017 from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02465 to the proceeding. BHC Alhambra Hospital operates as a subsidiary of Universal Health Services Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. BLACKBERRY LTD: Former Engineers Transferred to Ford File Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Jonston, writing for Auto Connected Car News, reports that Ford in the expansion of its Canadian research and development presence is spending $500 million investment, adding more than 400 software and hardware engineers and plans to establish a new Ottawa Research and Engineering Centre. Many of the engineers came through a deal with BlackBerry. The move is causing a controversy with former BlackBerry employees who were transferred/hired by the Ford. Ford uses BlackBerry's QNX software as part of its operating systems and Ford SYNC, it at first may seem like a win/win situation however the employees are crying foul. The BlackBerry engineers that were transferred/fired to Ford filed a class action lawsuit. An Ottawa law firm is seeking more than $20-million in damages against BlackBerry Ltd., alleging the company misled employees who accepted a transfer to Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP has commenced a class action against BlackBerry on behalf of a group of BlackBerry's employees working in Ontario and across Canada. BlackBerry arranged to transfer over 300 employees across Canada. Only after employees accepted employment with the business partner, BlackBerry informed the employees that they had resigned their employment. BlackBerry provided resignation letters for the employees to sign and dictated their last date of employment. BlackBerry stated that the transfer is not a sale of business, meaning the employees will lose all of their years of service. The lawsuit claims BlackBerry's actions amount to a termination of the employees' employment. This entitles these employees to statutory, common law, and/or contractual entitlements on termination. BlackBerry has stated that it will not pay BlackBerry employees any of these entitlements, despite the fact that employees lose all of their years of service. They allege that BlackBerry has breached its duties of good faith and honesty, and has knowingly misled the employees. BlackBerry structured this transaction in such a way as to avoid paying these employees their statutory entitlements. The suit seeks damages for the plaintiffs for minimum provincial statutory entitlements on termination, contractual entitlements on termination, and/or common law entitlements on termination. They are also seeking for bad faith and punitive damages, as well as costs. Plaintiffs in the class action include individuals who were employees and/or dependent contractors of BlackBerry Limited in Canada, and who were offered and accepted employment with the business partner. In a news release the lawyers discouraged employees from signing letters from QNX/BlackBerry. CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Faces "Shum" Wage and Hour Suit ---------------------------------------------------- WALTER SHUM, RUTH HO, BONNYAWD KITTLADAVAN, and MAGGIE CHUNG, individuals on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CLUB, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 TO 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC656681 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017), seeks to recover equitable and injunctive relief, economic and statutory damages, prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and other appropriate relief against the Defendants for violations of the Labor Code. The case is a civil wage and hour class action. The amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the sum of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in the illegal practice of requiring all non-exempt employees, including Plaintiffs and other employees who worked as dealers for the games including Black Jack, Pai Gow and Baccarat, to work four or more hours without a rest period in violation of the I.W.C. Wage Order, California Labor Code and other relevant laws, rules, orders, requirements and regulations. California Commerce operates a poker casino. It offers poker, blackjack, Caribbean stud, baccarat, and Asian style games.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shoham J. Solouki, Esq. Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq. SOLOUKI & SAVOY, LLP y 316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 814-4940 CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Settlement in "Thompson" Gets Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward J. Davila granted final approval of the class settlement in the case captioned, GABRIEL THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5: 16-cv-01486-EJD (N.D. Cal.). The case involves the Plaintiff bringing several wage-and-hour claims on behalf of food-service employees who worked during the 2016 Super Bowl. Under the settlement, the employees will receive a total of US$117,127.50. The amount is equivalent to payment for five hours of work by each employee at that employee's hourly overtime rate. The settlement further provides that the individual awards will range from less than $1.00 to $1,440.32. Fees to the settlement administrator will be $16,500 and the named Plaintiff will receive $500. In this case, the Plaintiff's counsel did not seek attorneys' fees. A copy of the Court's Order dated March 30, 2017 is available at https://goo.gl/ybtfX2 from Leagle.com. Gabriel Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Caren P. Sencer -- csencer@unioncounsel.net -- Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld. Gabriel Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by David Albert Rosenfeld, Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld. Centerplate of Delaware, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rachel T. Segal, Barnes and Thornburg, Steve Lou Hernandez -- steve.hernandez@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP & Scott J. Witlin -- scott.witlin@BTLaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg, LLP. CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Bid in "Labriola" Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Michelle Labriola, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Clinton Entertainment Management LLC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-04123 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer entered an order: a. granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff Labriola and Lapina's FLSA minimum wage claim; b. denying without prejudice claim regarding alleged seizure of tips to pay fees and otherwise; and c. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice as moot. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 28, 2017, Claims against John Does 1 and 2 are dismissed. If no other Plaintiff presents evidence in support of the overtime claim within 21 days, the court will grant summary judgment on that claim and dismiss the IMWL claims and the claim regarding the alleged retention of Labriola's $1,000 tip without prejudice. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cLvIIl3L CONDE NAST: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conde Nast Entertainment LLC. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Conde Nast Entertainment LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02529 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 7, 2017). The case is Conde Nast Entertainment, also called Conde Nast Entertainment Group, is the book to film division of Conde Nast magazine publisher.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com CREATIVE AIR: Faces "Menichiello" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE MENICHIELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CREATIVE AIR SOLUTIONS INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00613 (C.D. Cal., April 5, 2017), alleges that Defendant negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's home telephone to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. CREATIVE AIR SOLUTIONS INC. is a residential and commercial HVAC company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com DAVID GLADIEUX: "Buroff" Suit Seeks to Certify Inmates Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled DEMETRIUS BUROFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DAVID GLADIEUX, in his official capacity, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17- cv-00124-JD-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "all individuals held at the Allen County Jail on November 8, 2016 who on that date were U.S. citizens, residents of Indiana, were at least eighteen years of age, were not serving a sentence for a conviction of a felony crime, had not previously voted in the 2016 general election, were provided neither an absentee ballot nor transportation to a voting center, and were registered to vote or had been denied the opportunity to register to vote while held in the Allen County Jail". The Plaintiff alleges Defendant unlawfully and disenfranchised individuals held in the Allen County Jail by denying them the fundamental right to vote in the 2016 general election. See O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524, 530 (1974) (inmates "not allowed to use the absentee ballot and are denied any alternative means of casting their vote although they are legally qualified to vote" are under "a restriction which is so severe as itself to constitute an unconstitutionally onerous burden" (citation and internal quotes omitted); see also U.S. v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293, 1304-05 (7th Cir. 1985). The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of putative class members, alleges standardized discriminatory conduct by Defendant on the common issue of the right to vote in the 2016 general election. Defendant's acts and omissions, as operator of the Allen County Jail, give rise to common questions of law and fact including whether Defendant may bar inmates' access to the ballot, particularly when he has assumed an affirmative obligation to facilitate their ability to vote. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ux3GVgWv The Plaintiff is 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 DIAL CORP: Bid for Amended Class Cert. in Suit Over Soap Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Steven J. McAuliffe of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted motion for amended class certification and denied motion to strike in the case captioned, In re: Dial Complete Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 11-md-2263-SM ALL CASES (D.N.H.). The consolidated, multi-district class action litigation is brought by consumers in Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated consumers in those states, against defendant, The Dial Corporation (Dial). Plaintiffs allege that Dial continually misrepresented the antibacterial properties of its "Dial Complete" branded soap, and advance claims under their respective state consumer protection and unfair trade practices statutes, as well as statutory and common law causes of action for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. On November 16, 2012, pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 23(b)(3), plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting of each state's purported class members, for a total of eight subclasses, defined as: "All persons residing in the state who purchased Dial Complete Antibacterial Foaming Hand Soap for household use at any point in time from Dial Complete's commercial launch in 2001 through the present. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for certification for failure to provide detail sufficient to permit a full assessment of whether damages could be adequately calculated on a classwide basis. On June 24, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification asserting that class-wide damages can be reliably calculated in a manner that comports with their theories of liability. In opposition, Dial argued that Boedeker's proposed methodology is fundamentally flawed and incapable of measuring only those damages attributable to plaintiffs' theory of liability. Dial has also moved to exclude Boedeker's report from the court's consideration on grounds that it is flawed, unreliable, and does not meet the requirements of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). In an Order dated March 27, 2017 available at https://is.gd/rwQxT9 from Leagle.com, Judge McAuliffe denied Dial's motion to exclude Boedeker's expert testimony because the issues on attributes and the myriad others identified by Dial are either curable, or go to the weight, not admissibility, of Boedeker's testimony. As to the amended class certification, the Court found that plaintiffs' memoranda in support of their amended motion for class certification satisfies the demands of Comcast and Rule 23 because plaintiffs' damages calculation appears capable of reliably isolating the pertinent price premium and establishing the full extent of damages on a class-wide basis. In re Dial Complete Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation is represented by Eugene A. Schoon, Esq. -- eschoon@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP -- John-Mark Turner, Esq. -- jturner@sheehan.com -- and -- Robert H. Miller, Esq. -- rmiller@sheehan.com -- SHEEHAN PHINNEY BASS & GREEN PA Michelle Carter is represented by Eric D. Holland, Esq. -- eholland@allfela.com -- and -- Randall Seth Crompton, Esq. -- scrompton@allfela.com -- HOLLAND GROVES SCHNELLER STOLZE, LLC -- Lucy J. Karl, Esq. -- lkarl@shaheengordon.com -- SHAHEEN & GORDON Alicia Gentile is represented by Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq. -- jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com -- and -- James C. Shah, Esq. -- jshah@sfmslaw.com -- SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP -- Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq. -- tomm@maurlaw.com -- MAURIELLO LAW FIRM APC The Dial Corporation is represented by Patrick Haney, Esq. -- patrick.haney@kirkland.com -- Tracie Lynn Bryant, Esq. -- tracie.bryant@kirkland.com -- and -- Eugene F. Assaf, Esq. -- eugene.assaf@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS -- Allison W. Reimann, Esq. -- areimann@sidley.com -- Elizabeth M. Chiarello, Esq. -- echiarello@sidley.com -- Eugene A. Schoon, Esq. -- eschoon@sidley.com -- and -- Richard D. Raskin, Esq. -- rraskin@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP -- John E. Galvin, III, Esq. -- jgalvin@foxgalvin.com -- and -- Jonathan H. Garside, Esq. -- jgarside@foxgalvin.com -- FOX GALVIN, LLC DIALAMERICA MARKETING: "McKenna" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ MARGARET MCKENNA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DIALAMERICA MARKETING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00690-GPC-BGS (S.D. Cal., April 5, 2017), alleges that Defendant negligently and/or willfully or knowingly contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone to do marketing, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant is a telemarketing company, which provides domestic call center services for a variety of industries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: jason@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 222-7429 Fax: (866) 431-3292 E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com DIRECTV LLC: Faces "Frintzilas" Suit Over NYGBL Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- William Frintzilas and Angelo Pozzuto, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Directv, LLC and Mas Tec, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-02368 (S.D. N.Y., April 2, 2017) seeks injunctive relief, actual/compensatory damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for Defendants' deceptive business practices and for violation of public policy pursuant to New York General Business Law. Defendants have circumvented Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulations and violated public policy by performing installation of the Directv Equipment on roofs and exterior walls of Residential Dwelling Units ("RDUs") without securing prior written/verbal permission from the Plaintiffs-Landlords and/or putative class members, says the complaint. Plaintiff Frintzilas was the owner and landlord of a RDU located at 12 Forest Avenue, Glen Cove, NY 11542. Directv has been engaged in the marketing and sales of Directv satellite television service and the leasing and installation of Directv antennae such as a satellite dish and or other equipment designed for over-the-air reception of television broadcast signals ("Equipment") in the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Bennett Blau, Esq. Shelly A. Leonard, Esq. Blau, Leonard Law Group, LLC 23 Green Street, Suite 303 Huntington, NY 11743 Tel: (631) 458-1010 Email: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com DIRECT ENERGY: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in "Richards" --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GARY W. RICHARDS, Plaintiff, v. DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:14 cv 1724 (VAB), (D. Conn.), District Judge Victor A. Bolden granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot. The case involves the Plaintiff, Gary Richards, filing a putative class action against Direct Energy Services, LLC, asserting claims that arise out of Direct Energy's business of supplying electricity to residential customers. The Court need not to determine the Plaintiff's class certification motion having determined that the Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on all of the Plaintiff's claims. Thus, the motion for class certification was rendered moot. A copy of the Court's Order dated March 31, 2017 is available at https://goo.gl/CM0lXu from Leagle.com. Gary W. Richards, Plaintiff, represented by Robert A. Izard, Jr. - - rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP. Gary W. Richards, Plaintiff, represented by Craig A. Raabe -- craabe@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe LLP & Seth R. Klein -- sklein@ikrlaw.com -- Izard Kindall & Raabe. Direct Energy Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Hutson B. Smelley, Edison, McDowell & Hetherington LLP, pro hac vice, Michael D. Matthews, Jr., Edison, McDowell & Hetherington, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert P. Debelak, III, Edison, McDowell & Hetherington LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas F.A. Hetherington, Edison, McDowell & Hetherington LLP, pro hac vice, Joey Lee Miranda -- jmiranda@rc.com -- Robinson & Cole & Peter R. Knight, Robinson & Cole, LLP. DIRECTV LLC: Judge Will Not Decide on the Parties' Cross-Motions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the parties' cross- motions for summary judgment in the case styled JAMIE ARNOLD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DIRECTV, LLC, et al., Defendants, No. 4:10-CV- 352 JAR (E.D. Mo.). DirecTV sells and provides digital television and audio programming via satellite. After a customer signs up for DirecTV service, technicians install the receiving equipment in the subscriber's home or business. Plaintiffs are former satellite installation and service technicians classified as W-2 employees of one of DirecTV's three Home Services Providers. The court conditionally certified plaintiffs' FLSA claim to proceed as a collective action on four FLSA subclasses, the MasTec, Inc., Multiband Corporation, DirectSat USA, LLC and DirecTV Home Services. Plaintiffs have also moved for Rule 23 class action certification to pursue their Missouri state law claims on behalf of a subclass of DTV Home Services II, LLC technicians. Plaintiffs allege that they and other similarly situated technicians were jointly employed by DirecTV under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq., and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, Mo. Rev. Stat. Sections 290.500 et seq., and claim entitlement to overtime compensation from DirecTV for violations of the FLSA and MMWL. DirecTV moves for summary judgment as to the named representatives of the MasTec, Multiband and DirectSat subclasses on the grounds that it was not their joint employer. DirecTV argues it did not hire, fire, supervise, discipline, pay or provide benefits to plaintiffs or keep their personnel files. Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment on DirecTV's employment relationship, arguing that DirecTV operates a fissured employment scheme designed to allow the company to shed its role as a direct employer of its technicians while at the same time maintaining tight control over their day-to-day work, from the uniforms they wear to the method, manner, quantity, and quality of the work performed. Judge Ross denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment as there are genuine disputes regarding the material facts necessary to an analysis of the factors indicative of joint employment. The court cannot make credibility and factual determinations on a summary judgment motion. A copy of Judge Ross's memorandum and order dated March 31, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/vKZY0A from Leagle.com. Jamie Arnold and Clinton Feger, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew W. Funk -- Crystal R. Cook -- cook@stuevesiegel.com -- George A. Hanson -- hanson@stuevesiegel.com -- Lauren E. Luhrs -- luhrs@stuevesiegel.com -- at STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP; Bradford B. Lear -- lear@learwerts.com -- Sander C. Sowers -- sowers@learwets.com -- Todd C. Werts -- werts@learwerts.com. -- at LEAR WERTS LLP; Jesse B. Hearin, III -- JBHearin@HearinLLC.com -- at HEARIN, LLC; Michael G. Crow -- at CROW LAW FIRM, LLC; Jonathan P. Lemann -- lemannjp@couhigpartners.com -- Robert E. Couhig, Jr. -- couhigre@couhigpartners.com -- at COUHIG PARNTERS, LLC, Robert Guice, Julienne Mertens, Steven Parr, and Robert Ellendorf, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew W. Funk --Crystal R. Cook -- cook@stuevesiegel.com -- George A. Hanson -- hanson@stuevesiegel.com -- at STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP; Bradford B. Lear -- lear@learwerts.com -- Todd C. Werts -- werts@learwerts.com. -- at LEAR WERTS LLP Christian Lang, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Funk -- at STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP; George A. Barton -- at LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON PC Defendants, represented by Andrew Cahill Johnson -- anjohnson@littler.com -- James J. Oh -- joh@littler.com -- Patricia J. Martin -- pmartin@littler.com -- Jennifer C. Znosko -- jznosko@littler.com -- at LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Mayor Bowser Faces "Just-Buddy" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Muriel Bowser, mayor of Washington D.C. The case is titled as JOHN I. JUST-BUDDY, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of LUCILLE L. JUST- BUDDY, and DIONNE KINGSBURY, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of RONALD KINGSBURY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MURIEL BOWSER, in her official capacity as Mayor of the District of Columbia, and LAURA GREEN ZEILINGER, in her official capacity as the Director of the District of Columbia Department of Human Services, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00625 (D.D.C., Apr. 7, 2017). Washington, DC, the U.S. capital, is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia. [BN] DYNAMIC PET: "Brown" Sues Over Real Ham Bone For Dogs' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Brown, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dynamic Pet Products, LLC and Frick's Meat Products, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00659-JAH-BLM (S.D. Cal., April 1, 2017) seeks damages resulting from misrepresentations and omissions made by Defendants regarding the Real Ham Bone for Dogs in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. According to the complaint, despite knowing that the Real Ham Bone For Dogs is dangerous and not appropriate for dogs, Defendants expressly and impliedly represented and continue to represent on the product label and on Dynamic's website and other marketing that the Real Ham Bone For Dogs is "safe for your pet" and is "meant to be chewed." It has failed to inform consumers of the known dangers, and that the Real Ham Bone for Dogs is not safe and that when used as directed may cause injury or death. Defendants violated the Missouri MPA by engaging in deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice and the concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale and advertisement of the Real Ham Bone For Dogs in trade or commerce by, inter alia, deceptive and misleading advertising and failing to warn consumers and omitting material facts from its labeling, advertising and marketing materials, says the complaint. Frick's Meat Products, Inc. is a major meat product manufacturer and supplies sausages and other prepared meats to food retailers nationwide. Dynamic is in the business of manufacturing and selling chew toys for dogs.c[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon, II, Esq. Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619-338-1100 Fax: 619-338-1101 Email: tblood@bholaw.com lhurst@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Peterson" Suit in E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC. The case is entitled as Erika Peterson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 00499-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal., Apr. 7, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Enhanced Recovery Company provides business process outsourcing services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan George, Esq. Todd M. Friedman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com tfriedman@toddflaw.com FIREMEN'S ANNUITY: Firefighter Retirees Sue over Benefit Hike ------------------------------------------------------------- BANSLEY, MARK BENSON, PAUL J. BEZAZIAN, RICK W. BISKUP, SIDNEY L. BLUSTAIN, NANCY A. BONKO, PHILLIP W. BOZEMAN, KEVIN BRANNIGAN, SEAN W. BURKE, KEVIN G. BUTZEN, KEVIN P. BYRNE, MOSES CAJIGAS, DAVID A. CALES, MICHAEL J. CARASOTTI, JAMES CARROLL, ROBERT CASEY, WILLIS E. CHRISTIAN, VICTOR A. CIAPAS, JAMES P. CLARKE, THOMAS J. CLEMENS, DANIEL COZZI, DANIEL CULLEN, JAMES B. CUMMINGS, JOHN CZERWIONKA, BRUCE G. DAHM, LAGRANT K. DAVIS, RAMON DE JESUS, TIMOTHY F. DELANA, PATRICK F. DILLON, THOMAS DINNEEN, RICHARD A. DORY, KEVIN P. DOYLE, ROBERT D. DREYER, ROBERT F. DUBBERKE, JAMES B. DUNLOP, JOHN L. DURKIN, CLINTON ELMORE, DAVIS K. ENG, DANIEL P. FERGUSON, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. THE RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE FIREMANS ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO, MICHAEL J. SHANAHAN, TIMOTHY MCPHILLIPS, DANIEL FORTUNA, ANTHONY P. VASQUEZ, PETER O'SULLIVAN, ANNA VALENCIA, ERIN KEANE, KURT A. SUMMERS, JR, and All as Trustees of the FIREMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO, the Defendants, Case No. 2017-CH-05036 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as a review of annuity decisions by the Retirement Board pursuant to the Illinois Administrative Review Law, and other remedies that the Court may allow. Sometime between January 9, 2017 and March 1,2017, the Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, implemented Public Act No. 99-0905 in a manner that denied certain annuitants benefits they are entitled to under P.A. 99-0905 which became effective November 30, 2016. The Retirement Board calculated periodic cost-of-living adjustments, known as Annual Automatic Increases, to the pension benefits of Plaintiffs and a group of similarly situated firefighter retirees, in a manner inconsistent with P.A. 99-0905 that resulted in the denial of substantial present and future annuity benefits for the Plaintiffs and these similarly situated firefighter retirees. According to the Complaint, the Retirement Board ignored the express terms of P.A. 99-0905, and the intent of the legislature at the time of the passage of that Public Act and denied Plaintiffs, who are among approximately 214 other similarly situated firefighter retirees born in 1955 and 1956 who retired prior to January 1,2016, of Automatic Annual Increases of 3% to their annuity benefit for those years prior to January, 2017 during which they were retired and over the age of 55. Under P.A. 99-0905, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated firefighter retirees are entitled to an automatic annual 3% increase for each year since they attained the age of 55 or for every year after the first anniversary of their retirement date, whichever is later. The Retirement Board directed the Fund to calculate the benefits to Plaintiffs and these similarly situated firefighter retirees under P.A. 99-0905 in a manner which was substantially less than the rate authorized under P.A. 99-0905. Chicago Firemen's Annuity Benefit Fund provides long term financial security services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick E. Deady, Esq. Robert Sugarman, Esq. HOGAN MARREN BABBO & ROSE, LTD. 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 1301 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 946 1800 FLINT, MI: Judge Remands "Nappier" to Michigan Court of Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gordin J. Quist of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, remanded the case styled TAMARA NAPPIER, as mother and next fried of T.N., a minor child, on behalf of T.N. and a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD SNYDER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16- CV-636 (W.D. Mich.). As a cost-saving measure, the City of Flint switched its water source from the City of Detroit water system to the Flint River. In connection with the switch, officials discontinued corrosion- control treatments required by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and added ferric chloride, which increased the corrosivity of the Flint River water, to reduce formation of trihalomethanes from organic matter. Plaintiff Tamara Nappier, the mother and next friend of T.K., a minor, alleges that defendants knew that the water pumped from the Flint River was toxic and not fit for consumption, but nonetheless assured the public that it was safe to drink. Plaintiff further alleges that, in spite of defendants' assurances, T.K. experienced an elevated blood lead level and suffered permanent brain damage as a result of drinking water from the Flint River. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were grossly negligent and/or negligent in participating in, or facilitating, the switch to Flint River water as the source of the City of Flint's water. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all individuals who were minors, resided in the City of Flint, and suffered brain damage as a result of ingesting water supplied from the Flint River. Plaintiff filed a putative class action case in the Michigan Court of Claims on March 23, 2016, against Richard Snyder, Nick Lyon, Eden Wells, Nancy Peeler, and Robert(State defendants), Stephen Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby, Liane Shekter Smith, and Bradley Wurfel and Darnell Early (MDEQ defendants) and Gerald Ambrose. Plaintiff alleged a single substantive count of gross negligence and/or negligence against all defendants arising out of the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. Busch removed the case to the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, pursuant to the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1), alleging that pursuant to the federal Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. Section 300f et seq. and the EPA's LCR, the EPA has delegated authority to the MDEQ to act on its behalf and regulate public water drinking systems and that defendant Busch took the actions alleged by plaintiff in the course of fulfilling his duties delegated by the EPA to the MDEQ. Defendant Busch alleged that he was standing in the shoes of the EPA and taking actions which EPA would have otherwise been required to take, and his alleged actions were taken pursuant to EPA's oversight and guidance. Defendant Busch also alleged that the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441 because plaintiffs' claims are inextricably intertwined with the construction, interpretation, and effect of the SDWA and the LCR. Judge Quist concludes that the MDEQ defendants were not acting under any federal officer or agencies when they took the actions set forth in the complaint, and thus were not entitled to remove the case under the federal-officer removal statute. In addition, the court concludes that it does not have jurisdiction under the substantial federal question doctrine. Judge Quist will remand the case to the Michigan Court of claims for lack of jurisdiction. A copy of Judge Quist's opinion dated March 31, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/sxGh5F from Leagle.com. Tamara Nappier, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth C. Thomson, Hertz Schram PC -- lthomson@hertzschram.com -- Patricia A. Stamler -- pstamler@hertzschram.com -- at Hertz Schram PC Richard Snyder, Defendant, represented by Eugene Driker -- edriker@bsdd.com -- Morley Witus -- mwitus@bsdd.com -- Todd R. Mendel -- tmendel@bsdd.com -- at Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker; Margaret Bettenhausen -- Nathan A. Gambill -- Richard S. Kuhl -- Zachary C. Larsen -- at MI Dept Attorney General Darnell Earley, Defendant, represented by Todd Russell Perkins -- plg@perkinslawgroup.net -- The Perkins Law Group PLLC Gerald Ambrose, Defendant, represented by Barry Abba Wolf -- at Barry A. Wolf, Attorney at Law, PLLC Bradley Wurfel and Daniel Wyant, Defendant, represented by Christopher Bradley Clare -- cclare@clarkhill.com -- Jay M. Berger -- jberger@clarkhill.com -- Michael J. Pattwell -- mpattwell@clarkhill.com -- at Clark Hill PLC Liane Shekter Smith, Defendant, represented by Michael H. Perry -- mperry@fraserlawfirm.com -- Robert Paul Vance -- pvance@fraserlawfirm.com -- Thaddeus E. Morgan -- tmorgan@fraserlawfirm.com -- at Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap PC Stephen Busch, Defendant, represented by Courtney Beth Ciullo -- cciullo@kotzsangster.com -- Dennis Egan -- degan@kotzsangster.com -- Krista A. Jackson -- kjackson@kotzsangster.com -- Philip A. Grashoff, Jr. -- pgrashoff@kotzsangster.com -- at Kotz Sangster Wysocki PC Patrick Cook and Michael Prysby, Defendants, represented by Allison Marie Collins -- acollins@fosterswift.com -- Charles E. Barbieri -- CBarbieri@fosterswift.com -- at Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC Nick Lyon and Eden Wells, Defendants, represented by Margaret Bettenhausen -- Nathan A. Gambill -- Richard S. Kuhl -- Zachary C. Larsen -- at MI Dept Attorney General Robert Scott and Nancy Peeler, Defendants, represented by Michael S. Cafferty -- at Michael S. Cafferty & Associates PC FLORIDA: Class Action Aims to Restore Ex-Felons' Voting Rights -------------------------------------------------------------- Dee Thompson, writing for Florida Record, reports that a new lawsuit by a group of ex-felons seeks to change the strict Florida law that restricts voting rights for felons. The seven plaintiffs in the class action have sued Governor Rick Scott claiming the law restricting their rights is unconstitutional. The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. This suit was brought by the non-partisan Fair Elections Legal Network on behalf of the seven plaintiffs. It takes aim at the process by which they can seek to regain their voting rights. There is a backlog of more than 10,000 petitions to have voting rights restored. Over 1.6 million people in Florida have lost their voting rights, as the South Florida Sun-Sentinel cited research from The Sentencing Project. In many states, those convicted of felonies find their voting rights restricted. Florida, however, strips all former felons of voting rights. In 2011, Scott and Republican lawmakers enacted laws requiring felons to wait for five to seven years after their sentences are completed before even applying to have their voting rights reinstated. The Sentencing Project estimates that across America 6.1 million Americans have lost their voting rights. "So few people had their rights restored during Gov. Scott's first term that many others stopped applying," according to the project's website. "Applications for restoration of civil rights under Gov. Scott have dropped by nearly 95% from former Gov. Charlie Crist's administration." Howard Simon is the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida. He describes the Florida laws regarding voting rights as a holdover from the era immediately after the Civil War. "Florida was part of the Confederacy, and when the Civil War was over it was necessary to re-do the Florida constitution," Mr. Simon told the Florida Record. "It was necessary to extend full rights of citizenship to all of the former slaves. A whole structure was put in pace to comply with that requirement from the federal government, but also to deprive the black community of their political power. "The aim was to take the vote away from as many black people as possible. It was called The Black Codes, enacted in the years following the Civil War. The system was put in place in the 1868 constitution. That's the origin, but that's not where we are today." "Though the system was designed to take political power away from black people, it now turns out that more white people in Florida have been deprived of the right to vote, but black people are disproportionately part of the disenfranchised population," Simon said. Mr. Simon takes a dim view of the lack of voting rights for Florida felons. "I think this is a scandalous situation," he said. "Almost 10 percent of the entire adult population of Florida have been permanently barred from being able to partake in our democracy, barred from being able to vote unless they get clemency from the governor and the cabinet, which is something that does not happen that often. The clemency board only meets four times a year, and at the rate at which Florida convicts and incarcerates people, we will never dig ourselves out of this situation. This is the unfinished business of the Civil Rights movement in Florida." Mr. Simon said that Florida is one of a handful of states with such strict voting rights restrictions for felons. "There are only four states in the country -- Virginia, Kentucky, Iowa and Florida -- whose constitutions mandate the loss of all voting rights when convicted of any felony, for the rest of a person's life," he said. "In most places, if you're convicted of a felony you lose your rights, but your rights are restored when you've paid your debt to society and you've served all the terms and conditions of your sentence, but in Florida, you lose your rights for the rest of your life, unless they are restored by a vote of the governor and the cabinet." The ACLU is trying to end what it sees as an unfair and antiquated system. "The ACLU has a campaign underway for a proposed constitutional amendment to end the system of lifetime felon disenfranchisement," Mr. Simon said. "The proposed language for the constitutional amendment is before the (Florida Supreme Court). They hopefully will come down with an opinion very soon. I'm very optimistic, particularly since the Florida Attorney General did not oppose the language for the amendment. "If the Supreme Court approves it, then a movement can be initiated," Mr. Simon continued. "Almost a million signatures will be required to get this on the ballot, either in 2018 or 2020. The only solution is to bring the Florida constitution into the 21st century and to bring Florida, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century, and end this provision that dates from the post- Civil War era." FORSTER GARBUS: "Feliciano" Suit Seeks to Certify Consumers Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned GINGER I. FELICIANO, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, and LYNN ANTISTA, Consolidated Plaintiff (Case. No. 2:15-cv-04338-CLW), the Plaintiffs, v. FORSTER, GARBUS & GARBUS, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-02496- CLW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order certifying the case to proceed as a class action, and for final approval of the settlement, on behalf of the following class: "all Consumers who reside in the State of New Jersey to whom Forster, Garbus & Garbus mailed a written communication during the period beginning April 7, 2014, and ending June 24, 2015, in an attempt to collect a debt on behalf of either Sallie Mae or LVNV Funding LLC, on a Credit One Bank credit card account which were mailed in a windowed envelope such that the file number or QR Code containing the file number associated with the Debt was visible from the outside of the envelope". A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qzQo1oX2 The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 200 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273 7117 - and - Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN & THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1325 Telephone: (973) 379 7500 FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Class Certification Bid Denied in "Briggs" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned HELEN BRIGGS, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. FREEPORT-MCMORAN COPPER & GOLD, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:13-cv-01157-M (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Micki Miles- LaGrange entered an order: a. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and brief in support; b. denying Plaintiffs' motion to exclude certain opinions of Dr. Barbara Beck; c. denying Defendants' motions to exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Mark Berkman and Brief in Support, to Exclude Opinions of Plaintiffs' Expert J. Berton Fisher and Brief in Support, and to Exclude Opinions of Plaintiffs' Expert Richard DeGrandchamp and Brief in Support; and d. denying Defendants' motion to strike rebuttal reports of Plaintiffs' Experts and Brief in support and Defendants' motion to strike second rebuttal report of Plaintiffs' Expert Richard DeGrandchamp as moot. The action stems from Plaintiffs' allegations of continuous and ongoing pollution and contamination in and around the City of Blackwell, Kay County, Oklahoma. Plaintiffs allege the pollution emanates from the Blackwell Zinc Smelter, which plaintiffs allege Defendants own. The Blackwell Smelter began operations in 1916 and ceased operations on May 17, 1972. The Plaintiffs allege that the Blackwell Smelter has continued to spread pollution throughout Blackwell from the beginning of its operations until today. Plaintiffs further allege that smelters, like the Blackwell Smelter, can cause air-polluting emissions and that Defendants operated the Blackwell Smelter with no emission controls. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fcbgbUP3 GEO: Detained Immigrants' Class Action Over Unpaid Labor OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- Madison Pauly, writing for Morther Jones, reports that when Carlos Eliezer Ortiz Munoz arrived at the Denver Contract Detention Facility in Aurora, Colorado, in 2014, he was given a clothing package and assigned to a housing unit, where he'd have to stay for months. Like tens of thousands of other immigrants across the country who are kept in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention each night, Ortiz and his fellow detainees were waiting to see if they'd win their immigration cases or face deportation. Before long, the private prison company that ran the detention center put Ortiz to work. Each day in his housing unit, guards assigned a crew of six detainees to clean the private and common living areas; scrub down toilets, showers, and eating tables; and sweep and mop floors. "None of us got paid anything," Ortiz said in a court statement. But he couldn't protest -- he knew he could be sent to solitary confinement if he refused to do the cleaning. "Some of the guards would threaten us by saying, 'Quieres ir al hoyo?'" Ortiz said. "'You want to go to the hole?'" The GEO Group, the private prison company that operates Aurora, allegedly forced more than 50,000 immigrants like Ortiz to work without pay or for $1 a day since 2004, according to a lawsuit that nine detainees brought against the company in 2014. On February 27, a federal judge ruled that their case could proceed as a class action, breathing new life into a suit that exposes the extent to which the for-profit company relied on cheap or unpaid detainee labor to minimize costs at the Aurora facility. "If we're right, and these practices are illegal, it has tremendous implications on the ability of the government to use detention in the immigration enforcement architecture," says Andrew Free, an immigration attorney on the detainees' legal team. "It would prompt a serious rethinking of whom to detain, and how much it's going to cost." GEO incarcerates more immigrants (and receives more public money to do so) than any other detention center operator, according to an analysis by the anti-detention group CIVIC. And its business detaining immigrants for ICE is only expected to grow "with this increased and expanded approach to border security," CEO George Zoley said in a February earnings call. According to the lawsuit, there were two ways GEO cashed in on cheap labor from detainees. There was the facility's sanitation policy, under which detainees like Ortiz were required to work as janitors without pay. If they didn't, they risked being punished with solitary confinement, according to GEO's local detainee handbook. Detainees could also apply for a job in Aurora's voluntary work program, which paid them exactly $1 a day to keep the facility running. In a statement, GEO spokesman Pablo Paez wrote that GEO's volunteer work program policies follow federal standards. "We have consistently, strongly refuted the allegations made in this lawsuit, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend our company against these claims," he said. "The volunteer work program at all immigration facilities as well as the minimum wage rates and standards associated with the program are set by the Federal government under mandated performance-based national detention standards." "The problem isn't the existence of the work program. The problem is this inherently coercive relationship that makes the workers uniquely vulnerable to exploitation and abuse." ICE's standards for immigration detention centers say that voluntary work programs are intended to give detainees "opportunities to work and earn money while confined." Yet David Fathi, director of the ACLU's National Prison Project, says it's questionable whether such programs are truly voluntary for people "held in captivity, against their will." While working may be a positive outlet for incarcerated people, Fathi says, "the problem isn't the existence of the work program. The problem is this inherently coercive relationship that makes the workers uniquely vulnerable to exploitation and abuse." Some people in Aurora's program stripped and waxed floors, while others did laundry, prepared food, cut hair, or worked in the library. Shifts lasted between three and eight hours, according to a copy of Aurora's detainee work program policy, and detainees were paid the same $1 no matter how long they were assigned to work. Lourdes Argueta volunteered. She was given a job as a janitor in the medical unit, where she and other detainees "clean toilets, sweep and mop floors, pull carpets and clean floors, clean windows, remove trash, clean patients' rooms (including cleaning up blood, feces and urine), and perform other cleaning tasks," she said in a statement to the court. She also worked in GEO's booking area, creating new detainee files and putting together packages of clothing for new detainees. During a deposition, GEO's assistant business manager at Aurora testified that if there were no "voluntary workers" like Argueta, the company would need to bring in additional officers, paid at hourly wages set by rules in GEO's contract, to get the same work done. So how much would the company have to shell out if it didn't rely on cheap detainee labor? Under GEO's contract with ICE, which incorporated federal wage regulations, the lowest allowable employee wage at the Aurora facility was $10.90 an hour for food service workers. A typical shift in the voluntary work program lasted approximately seven hours, according to the detainee work program policy -- so if GEO had hired additional employees to do the work, it would have cost the company nearly $76.30 per shift. (That's a lowball estimate, given that some detainees worked jobs that would have paid significantly more.) Instead, they spent $1. If GEO had hired employees to do those jobs instead, the company would have spent more than $125,000 in wages and benefits that month. GEO's actual payments: $1,680. That translates to huge cost savings. Take, for example, November 2012, when detainees took hundreds of voluntary work program shifts. If GEO had hired employees to do those jobs instead, the company would have spent more than $125,000 in wages and benefits that month. GEO's actual payments: $1,680. That number only increases if you account for Aurora's sanitation policy, under which all detainees in the facility did janitorial work in the housing units for no pay, the lawsuit alleges. GEO employees doing the same work would have been eligible for $12.01 per hour in wages, under the company's contract with ICE. "If GEO was absorbing all of the labor costs, its profit would be less," explains Nina DiSalvo, executive director of Towards Justice, one of the firms representing the detainees. Andrew Free, the attorney, goes further: "It turns their profits upside down," he claims. "It would be a money-losing enterprise if they had to pay the people to operate this facility under the current contract." (Given that the Department of Homeland Security pays an average of $126.46 per day to detain one immigrant, that may not be a stretch.) So how does the company get away with it? The "dollar a day" policy dates back to 1978, when Congress passed an appropriations bill funding voluntary detainee work programs, says Jacqueline Stevens, the head of Northwestern University's Deportation Research Clinic, whose research on detainee labor informed the 2014 suit. But that was before the rise of private prison companies, she adds -- and it was initially implemented in government-run facilities, not those run by for-profit companies beholden to shareholders. "GEO's privately held, so there's an extra concern that they may be exploiting people in a way an institution run by federal government would not be," Stevens explains. When immigrants inside Aurora filed grievances asking why they weren't paid more, GEO's assistant business manager replied by saying that ICE, not the company, set the daily rate. But in February's order, Colorado District Court Judge John Kane ruled that while ICE only reimburses GEO for $1 per detainee shift, the company could pay more if it wanted. (And in fact, in at least one other location, it appears to have paid detainees more than the $1 ICE reimbursed it for, Stevens says.) While the detainees aren't eligible for employment under GEO's contract, their lawsuit argues that GEO "unjustly enriched" itself by misleading them about how much it could pay. While the detainees aren't eligible for employment under GEO's contract, their lawsuit argues that GEO "unjustly enriched" itself by misleading them about how much it could pay. "By far the greatest expense of running any detention facility is labor," Fathi says. "GEO has got to be worried that if this practice is unlawful at one facility, it's presumptively unlawful at all facilities." If they lose, he adds, "they have to be looking at not just what they would have to pay at Aurora." The lawsuit also argues that the sanitation policy violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, a modern anti-slavery statute. To maintain cleanliness in the housing units, GEO used housekeeping crews like the one Ortiz was assigned to when he arrived at Aurora. According to GEO's local detainee handbook, refusing to clean was considered a "high moderate"-level offense and was punishable by several possible sanctions, including up to three days of so-called "disciplinary segregation": solitary confinement. Plaintiff Demetrio Valerga told the court in a statement that he "did the work anyway because it was well known that those who refused to do that work for free were put in 'the hole.'" With the sanitation policy in place, the company employed just one janitor for the 1,500-bed facility. ICE's own standards say detainees can't be required to work, except for keeping "immediate living areas" neat: making their beds, stacking loose papers, and keeping the floor and furniture uncluttered. Under questioning during a deposition, Aurora's assistant warden of operations made it clear that GEO considered all parts of the housing unit (bathrooms and day areas, as well as cells) to be fair game. Yet a federal watchdog agency recently found that requiring detained immigrants to clean any common areas used by all detainees was a violation of ICE standards. "Imagine you see people being yelled at by guards and thrown in solitary all the time," Free says. "In order to avoid solitary yourself, you have to maintain the sanitary nature of the facility you're being housed in. And then they say, 'If you want, we'll pay you a dollar a day to do something else. If you don't, you're still going to work when we tell you to.' And the company that's on the other end of this is making millions." GILEAD GROUP: "Adams" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ROWLAND JEFFERY ADAMS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. GILEAD GROUP, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, REALTIME RESULTS, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, DIANE KOPITSKY, individually, and JOHN McFERRON, individually, the Defendants. Case No. 3:16-cv-01566-HLA-JBT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an Order: a. conditionally certifying a class of: "current and former Field Collection Agents or Retention Specialists who worked for Defendants from three years preceding entry of the parties' class-wide tolling agreement to the present"; b. directing Defendants to produce to undersigned counsel within 14 days of the Order granting this Motion a list containing the names, the last known addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative class members who worked for Defendants from three years prior to the parties' class-wide tolling agreement; c. authorizing undersigned counsel to send notice and a reminder notice, to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by Defendants' counsel by first-class mail and e-mail; d. requiring Defendants post a copy of the notice as approved by the Court, along with the Consent to become a Party Plaintiff attached to the notice, at each of Defendants' locations at which such potential class members are employed; e. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by Defendants' counsel with 90 days from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff; and f. granting any other relief that is just and appropriate. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uOrpkyjn The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hanna, Esq. Morgan & Morgan, P.A. 600 N. Pine Island Rd., Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318 0268 Facsimile: (954) 333 3515 E-mail: MHanna@forthepeople.com GLASSBORO, NJ: Faces Rental Discrimination Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- NJ.com reports that there's a long history of spats involving the Borough of Glassboro, Rowan University students who live in nearby off-campus neighborhoods, landlords who rent to those students, and long-term private homeowners who live in the same neighborhoods. Add to this four-headed monster a fifth head: a university that has grown too quickly to provide on-campus residences for every student that wants one. So, the fact that another lawsuit was filed last month by some of the parties evokes the movie "Groundhog Day" -- except that Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell resolved their time-loop issues in a different small town in 101 minutes. This time, let's hope that there's an alternate ending for all Glassboro stakeholders. The March 20 class-action litigation continues the old dynamic, but with a new discrimination claim. The group that filed it against the borough, "Glassboro Guardians," maintains that it is made up of both students and rental-property owners. While the organization's name sounds as if Curtis Sliwa should lead it, there's a novel wrinkle in the filing. Glassboro Guardians' suit states that since 1971, Rowan's main campus enrollment has grown from 6,000 to 16,000 students -- but the housing available to students hasn't increased at nearly the same pace, both on and off campus. The university itself provides housing to just 4,500 students, court papers state. In addition, about 1,100 borough rental properties are occupied by 3,314 tenants, 80 percent of whom are college students. The "discrimination" claim is that the borough has "selectively enforced" various housing ordinances since the 1970s, some of which were enacted just to "discourage, reduce and eliminate these rentals to college students." College students and landlords as a protected anti-discrimination class? Really? If that contention is dubious, the housing data filed with the suit and the shortage it highlights are relevant. Color us skeptical about the degree of genuine student involvement in the suit. Its demands for relief are typical of landlord groups that have sued earlier: Glassboro's, oh, so burdensome requirement for property owners to get a $160 rental license for each unit; security lighting and inspection regulations that aren't imposed on single-family homes that are rented to just one family. Excuse Glassboro for wanting to protect inexperienced 18- and 19- year-olds who'd agree to live in an actual dump if the rent were low enough. Is the borough council supposed to put its fingers in its ears when longtime, single-family homeowners turn up with frequent to complaints about noise, partying and parking woes (another key element in the lawsuit) that students inflict on their neighborhoods? The new question that the suit prompts is: "What is the university's obligation?" Should Rowan have to stop adding student spaces until it can offer enough housing to meet increased enrollment? It's a good question, but one that could be answered outside the courts. The data make a compelling case that there's been insufficient planning for on-campus housing and little effective coordination for years between the borough and university about how to best deal with a student-housing pinch. Instead of going back and forth about beer bottles on lawns, the next summit should be a big-picture one on what all parties can do to ease the shortage or keep it from getting worse. GREATER HUME: Fire Victims' Class Action Opens in Supreme Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Grimson, writing for The Border Mail, reports that more than 50 victims of a 2009 fire that started in the Walla tip and blazed through about 8000 hectares of land -- burning down buildings and killing livestock -- are claiming damages against Greater Hume Shire Council in a class action that began in the Supreme Court in Wagga on April 3. Damages have not yet been quantified by the plaintiffs, but it is believed to be many millions of dollars. Gerogery Fire victim Sharon Patricia Weber is the lead plaintiff of 57 people who are suing the council and who are represented by bushfire specialists, Maddens Lawyers. The plaintiffs allege that had the tip been properly managed by council and had proper firebreaks in place a blaze believed to have been started by spontaneous combustion on Thursday, December 17, 2009, would not have escaped the tip. The fire destroyed 800 sheep, 450 hectares of unharvested crop, 300 kilometres of fencing, 40 cattle, four horses and four Gerogery houses. Strong winds fanned the fire and made the job of containing the blaze difficult. The fire forced the suspension of some rail passenger services and closed several roads. Walla farmer Martin Jacob told the court on Monday that some months before the fire his contract with council to maintain the Walla tip with a traxcavator -- a piece of earth-moving equipment -- was reduced from once a week to an hourly rate and that council did not provide soil to cover refuse. He said he asked a Greater Hume Shire Council employee whom he dealt with what he should do if he could not get the refuse "down" in the two-and-a-half hours a week he was allocated. "He said 'just leave it there'," Mr Jacob said. Asked about fire hazard reduction work by council at the tip, Mr Jacob said there may have been slashing of grass about three metres wide outside the tip fence. Mr Jacob's property, Springvale, is about two kilometres from the tip and within sight of the facility. He told the court that after he was alerted to the blaze he got sheep out of a paddock in the line of the fire before he then went to the tip to join the fight against the blaze. The hearing, before Justice Michael Walton, continues. Evidence from local witnesses will be heard in the Wagga court. A viewing of the tip is also expected before the case is adjourned to Sydney for two or three weeks of evidence from expert witnesses. GREYSTAR REAL: California Court Dismisses "Kohler" Case ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JORDAN KOHLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-02195 JAH(KSC), (S.D. Cal.), District Judge John A. Houston granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's class action complaint. The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. The Court noted that the Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies within 30 days of the filing of the Order dated March 31, 2017. The Court finds that the Plaintiff's complaint fails to join the necessary parties as any decision by the Court will impact the property owner. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to join is granted with leave to amend. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://goo.gl/pdKWEl from Leagle.com. Jordan Kohler, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew M. Loker, Kazerouni Law Group, APC. Jordan Kohler, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian, Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Alexander Lim, Hyde & Swigart & Joshua Swigart, Hyde & Swigart. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark G. Rackers, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP & Shannon Z. Petersen, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP. HAIN CELESTIAL: "Arena" Sues BOD for Breach of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------------------- Rudy Arena, as trustee of the UA 10-22-1996 Rudy Arena Revocable Trust and Peter M. Hallock, Individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant, Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Irwin D. Simon, Richard C. Berke, Andrew R. Heyer, Raymond W. Kelly, Roger Meltzer, Scott M. O'Neil, Adrianne Shapira, Lawrence S. Zilavy, Pasquale Conte, Michael B. McGuinness, Stephen J. Smith and Ross Weiner, Defendants, Case No. 602881/2017, (N.Y. Sup., April 4, 2017), seeks damages sustained by the Company as a result of the Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties; an order to the Director Defendants to convene and hold an annual meeting of Hain Celestial stockholders; appropriate equitable relief; costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees; accountants' and experts' fees, costs, expenses; and such other and further relief for breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith. Hain Celestial is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Lake Success, New York. It manufactures, markets, distributes and sells organic and natural products. Plaintiff alleges internal control failures and deficiencies, woeful compensation and corporate governance practices in Hain Celestrial as well as constant restatement of its financial statements, numerous SEC comment letters and resignations of key executives. Irwin D. Simon is the founder of Hain Celestial. Simon has been President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of Hain Celestial since the Company's formation in May 1993. Richard C. Berke, Andrew R. Heyer, Raymond W. Kelly, Roger Meltzer, Scott M. O'Neil, Adrianne Shapira, Lawrence S. Zilavy, Pasquale Conte, Michael B. McGuinness, Stephen J. Smith and Ross Weiner are members of the board of directors of Hain Celestial. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Shapiro, Esq. THE SHAPIRO FIRM, LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10110 Telephone: (212) 391-6464 Facsimile: (212) 719-1616 Email: rshapiro@theshapirofirm.com - and - Eric L. Zagar, Esq. Robin Winchester, Esq. Christopher M. Windover, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER AND CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 HEWLETT PACKARD: "Delman" Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------- Richard Delman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. and Nebraska Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Index No. 54198/2017, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 31, 2017. The clerk of court assigned Case No. 7:17-cv-02358-KMK to the proceeding. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company provides technology solutions to business and public sector enterprises. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter C. Hein, Esq. Marc Wolinsky, Esq. Ishpuneet K. Chhabra, Esq. Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 403-1000 Email: PCHein@wlrk.com HYUNDAI: Santa Fe Engine Stall Class Action Settlement Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Hyundai Santa Fe engine stall class-action lawsuit is finally settled and over as a federal judge gave final approval to the settlement terms concerning 2010-2012 Hyundai Santa Fe SUVs. The class-action lawsuit was filed by lead plaintiffs Julia Reniger and Greg Battaglia who claim their SUVs kept stalling without warning, causing problems with trying to steer and stop the SUVs. The plaintiffs allege Hyundai knew about the stalling problems but concealed the information from consumers and making trips to dealerships didn't help because dealers typically said the problems couldn't be duplicated. In the case of Julia Reniger, she claims numerous dealer visits did nothing to help and she finally traded in the Santa Fe. The dealer had changed the battery and worked on the throttle body, but Ms. Reniger claims the SUV continued to stall while traveling at various speeds. Throughout the years, Hyundai Santa Fe owners have complained about their engines stalling at every speed, including highway speeds where stalling engines can raise hell with other drivers. "I have a 2012 Santa Fe that stalls on the freeway at speeds of 60-80mph. This has happened at least every couple of weeks since I bought this POS car back in March 2013. I've taken it in numerous times. Of course, they cannot replicate the error. I actually have video of me driving on the freeway with NO RPMs and while keeping my foot pressed all the way down on the accelerator, got the car back up to 70 with ZERO RPMs. How the hell does that happen? Dealer thinks I'm nuts." - 2012 Hyundai Santa Fe owner / Gilbert, Arizona "In October 2015, my 2011 Hyundai Santa Fe lost acceleration while going 70 mph in the left lane. We could have been killed, but were able to flag cars to slow down so we could coast to the right side of the highway to stop. This is the second time this has happened. . . . Hyundai appears to want to wait until someone dies before fixing it. Hyundai won't do a buyback for me. I read that there was a class action lawsuit regarding the stalling in CA, but don't know it's status." - 2011 Hyundai Santa Fe owner / Strawberry Plains, Tennessee A previous customer service campaign told owners the problem only occurs when a specific set of operating conditions are present and the SUVs can be restarted once they stall, claims the plaintiffs say are false. With the 2010-2012 Hyundai Santa Fe engine stall class-action lawsuit finalized by the court, the automaker agrees to reimburse customers on a claims-made basis for out-of-pocket costs if the customer's SUV experienced a documented stall. In addition, a software update will be available for free for 10 years after the date the SUVs were sold as new. In addition, the automaker will provide a special cash incentive on a claims-made basis to customers who wish to replace their Santa Fe SUVs. Hyundai is also offering an enhanced rebate program that provides rebates from $500 to $2,000 for customers who experienced two documented stall events. For those who experienced one documented stall event, Hyundai is offering a rebate of $250 to $1,000 on the purchase or lease of a new Hyundai vehicle, depending upon the specific new vehicle purchased or leased. Finally, any dealer or customer incentives that otherwise would be available to customers at the time of the new vehicle purchase or lease will remain available notwithstanding availability of the rebate certificate or enhanced rebate certificate. The Hyundai Santa Fe engine stall class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California - Julia Reniger, Greg Battaglia, Oren Jaffe, Lucia Saitta and Ann Mancuso, et al, v. Hyundai Motor America and Hyundai Motor Company. The plaintiffs are represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. JOS. A. BANK: "Leese" Suit Moved to New Jersey Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled MICHAEL LEESE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. BUR L 437 17, was removed on April 7, 2017 from the Superior Court of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey (Camden). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-02407 to the proceeding. Joseph A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., also known by the abbreviated name JoS. A. Bank Clothiers, is a retailer of men's clothing, particularly known for its low-priced men's suits. [BN] LANNETT CO: NY Local Fund Allege Price Fixing of Levothyroxine -------------------------------------------------------------- New York City, Local 246, S.E.I.U. Welfare Benefits Fund; New York City, Local 246, S.E.I.U. Retirees Welfare Benefits Fund; Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund; Teamsters Local 237 Retirees Benefit Fund; Teamsters Local 237 Brentwood School District Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Teamsters Local 237 North Babylon School District Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Teamsters Local 237 Suffolk Regional Off-Track Betting Corp. Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Teamsters Plainview Old Bethpage Central School District Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Uniformed Sanitationmen's Association Security Benefit Fund; and Uniformed Sanitationmen's Association Retirees Welfare Fund; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lannett Company, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sandoz, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02467 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2017), alleges that Defendants, directly and through their agents, engaged in a conspiracy affecting all states to fix and inflate prices of generic levothyroxine, which unreasonably restrained trade and adversely affected the market for generic levothyroxine. The Defendants are pharmaceuticals companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Richard M. Heimann, Esq. Eric B. Fastiff, Esq. Brendan P. Glackin, Esq. Dean M. Harvey, Esq. Bruce W. Leppla, Esq. Michelle A. Lamy, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Phone: (415) 956-1000 Fax: (415) 956-1008 Email: ecabraser@lchb.com rheimann@lchb.com efastiff@lchb.com bglackin@lchb.com dharvey@lchb.com bleppla@lchb.com mlamy@lchb.com - and - Daniel E. Seltz, Esq. Annika K. Martin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Phone: (212) 355-9500 Fax: (212) 355-9502 Email: dseltz@lchb.com amartin@lchb.com - and - Dan Drachler, Esq. Robert S. Schachter, Esq. Joseph Lipofsky, Esq. Sona Shah, Esq. ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 41 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10010 Phone: (212) 223-3900 Fax: (212) 371-5969 Email: ddrachler@zsz.com rschacter@zsz.com jlipofsky@zsz.com sshah@zsz.com LAS VEGAS SANDS: Faces "Kennedy" Suit over Pilots Salary -------------------------------------------------------- SEAN KENNEDY, individual; ANDREW SNIDER; individual, CHRISTOPHER WARD; individual, RANDALL WESTON, individual; RONALD WILLIAMSON, individual the Plaintiffs, v. LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP., a Domestic Corporation; SANDS AVIATION, LLC, a Domestic Limited-Liability Company; LAS VEGAS SANDS, LLC, a Domestic LimitedLiability Company; INTERFACE OPERATIONS LLC, a Foreign Limited-Liability Company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00880-JCM-VCF (D. Nev., Apr. 6, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages to redress the deprivations of rights secured to Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). The Plaintiffs are residents of Las Vegas, in the County of Clark, in the State of Nevada. The Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants as company pilots. The Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have entered agreements relating to their employment with all the Defendants and their associated entities. The Defendants allegedly maintained illegal pay policies that denied Plaintiffs compensation for all hours worked, including overtime hours. Defendants knew that Plaintiffs were not getting paid for all the hours for which they were entitled to payment. Las Vegas Sands is a pre-eminent developer and operator of world- class Integrated Resorts that feature luxury hotels.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andre M. Lagomarsino, Esq. LAGOMARSINO LAW 3005 West Horizon Ridge Parkway, Suite 241 Henderson, NE 89052 Telephone: (702) 383 2864 Facsimile: (702) 383 0065 LOUISIANA: Livingston Parish School Board Joins Flood Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Olivia Olsen, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that the Livingston Parish School Board recently voted in a unanimous decision to join a class-action lawsuit against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development as well as the company responsible for constructing Interstate 12. The suit, filed Jan. 5 in Baton Rouge, alleges that the construction of a median on the interstate worsened flooding that occurred in August damaging several of the parish's schools. The Livingston Board voted Jan. 19 to join the suit, The Advocate reported. The school board joins the cities of Denham Springs and Walker in seeking damages. The plaintiffs' goal is to prove that the concrete median acted as a dam during torrential rain fall last autumn that impeded the water's natural flow causing significant damage to public buildings when the water finally did break through. Louisiana's transportation department intends to use the same design for the highway's expansion project, a plan that attorney Joshua Palmintier hopes will stop the suit, though it would take a court order to do so, he told The Advocate. Livingston Parish Public Schools Superintendent Rick Wentzel had previously joined the lawsuit and encouraged the school board to officially enter as well. The vote was presented at the school board's regularly scheduled meeting. The plaintiffs hope that the addition of the district, which suffered significant enough damage for three schools to have them remained closed well into the second semester, will help the case. In addition to the schools, several other buildings including area residences and businesses sustained damage. The cities represented in the suit maintain that the damages are impeding tax collections causing a negative financial impact. The plaintiffs fear that if the 12-mile continuation of the median is completed, the construction will create an even more-disastrous situation for the community in the event of another flood. Mr. Palmintier and his team have enlisted the help of hydrologists to investigate and generate evidence of the median's construction flaws. LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Winehouse" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LTD Financial Services, LP. The case is styled as Isaac Winehouse, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. LTD Financial Services, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 02038 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 7, 2017). The case is LTD Financial is a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (516) 668 6945 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com MAIBEC INC: Class Certification Bid Denied in "Stern" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled ILENE STERN and MELISSA McCAFFREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MAIBEC INCORPORATED, the Defendant, Case No. 3:11- cv-03951-PGS-TJB (D.N.J.), the Hon. Peter G. Sheridan entered an order: a. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; b. granting Defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony of Plaintiffs' expert Mr. Dean Rutila; c. denying Plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert testimony of Defendant's expert Dr. Barry Goodell; d. granting Plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert testimony of Defendant's expert Mr. Jan Kalas; and e. denying Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiffs' new arguments and documents submitted in reply on motion for class certification or in the alternative for permission to tile sur-reply. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XN9oIPW7 MAYNE PHARMA: Amended Class Cert. Bid Denied in Glen Ellyn Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan entered an order in the lawsuit entitled Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. Mayne Pharma, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06654 (N.D. Ill.), striking Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 28, 2017, status hearing previously set for May 18, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. will stand. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cqEAmPHf MIDAN REST: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement in "Manley" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Plaintiffs' motions for final approval of settlement agreement and settlement class in the case captioned, EDWARD MANLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MIDAN REST. INC. d/b/a "Moran's Chelsea," et al., Defendants, Case No. 14 Civ. 1693 (HBP) (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Edward Manley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, commenced the action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq., and New York Labor Law (NYLL) Sections 190 et seq. against defendants Midan Rest. Inc., doing business as Moran's Chelsea, and Colleen Lydon to recover unpaid wages, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions and penalties for failure to provide wage statements and notices. Manley commenced the action as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) with respect to the FLSA claims and as a class action with respect to the NYLL claims. In June 2015, the parties engaged in an arm's-length negotiation during a thirteen-hour mediation session with mediator Ruth Raisfeld, Esq. The Settlement Agreement provides that defendants, without conceding the validity of plaintiffs' claims or admitting liability, agree to create a common settlement fund of $912,500. From the settlement fund, Manley will receive a $15,000.00 service award, the settlement claims administrator will receive an estimated $15,500.00 to set up and make distributions from the fund and counsel for plaintiffs will receive out-of-pocket costs and attorneys' fees, not to exceed 33-1/3 percent of the total settlement amount, subject to the Court's approval. On March 30, 2016, the Court conditionally certified the NYLL class, appointed Pechman Law Group PLLC as class counsel, preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and authorized the notice of settlement to all putative class and collective members. On August 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed the pending motion for final approval. In his Opinion and Order dated March 27, 2017, available at https://is.gd/7I4JS5 from Leagle.com, Magistrate Pitman concluded that the settlement is procedurally fair pursuant to Rule 23(e) and all the relevant factors weigh in favor of settlement. Jennifer Kuehn, et al. are represented by Louis Pechman, Esq. -- pechman@pechmanlaw.com -- and -- Vivianna Alexandra Morales, Esq. -- morales@pechmanlaw.com -- PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC Midan Rest. Inc. and Colleen Lydon are represented by Robert N. Swetnick, Esq. -- rswetnick@evw.com -- EATON & VAN WINKLE, LLLP -- Adam Simeon Gross, Esq. -- Adam.Gross@jacksonlewis.com -- and -- Felice B. Ekelman, Esq. -- EkelmanF@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C. MILLER & STARK: Class Certification Bid in "Zolandz" Suit Nixed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CYNTHIA ZOLANDZ, the Plaintiff, v. MILLER STARK KLEIN & ASSOCIATES and ICOLLECT.COM, INC, the Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-1163 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order terminating motion for class certification for administrative purposes. The Court said, "The plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers to as a "protective" or "placeholder" motion to certify a class. Concurrently the plaintiff requested to stay briefing on the motion. The Court grants plaintiff's motion to stay briefing on this motion. However, the court regards the motion as pending to the extent a pending motion is required to satisfy the plaintiff's intended protective purpose in light of Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), and Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016). A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kgqNdPuX MINNESOTA: Sex Offenders to Bring Class Action to Supreme Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Rogers, writing for KEYC Mankato, reports that lawyers in the class-action lawsuit on behalf of 700 sex offenders say they will be bringing the case to the United States Supreme Court. In 2015, district judge Donovan Frank declared the sex offenders program unconstitutional, because only a handful of offenders had won provisional releases. The court of appeals reversed Judge Frank's decision in January. Now, the lawyers for the sex offenders say it's not practical to proceed and draw up remedies until there is a final resolution decided in the Supreme Court. "Some of them are very intelligent people. It's just something clicked, where they can't fix it and all we can do is manage them. And that's what we have to be worried about. When do we release them into the community and when it is safe and that what I think the Supreme Court will base their decision on," Rep. Tony Cornish said. Rep. Cornish recently authored a bill pushing to strengthen laws when it comes to predatory offenders. MONSANTO COMPANY: 6 Suits Filed in Del. Over Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in six different lawsuits seek to recover compensatory damages as a result of Plaintiff's use of, and exposure to, Roundup (TM) which caused or was a substantial contributing factor in causing Plaintiff to suffer from cancer, specifically NHL, and Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, severe and personal injuries which are permanent and lasting in nature, physical pain and mental anguish, including diminished enjoyment of life. The 6 lawsuits are captioned as: DAVID BORROWMAN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. N17C-03-264-FWW (Del. Super. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017). MIGUEL AGUILAR, Plaintiff v. the MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. N17C-03-259-ALR (Del. Super. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017). RICHARD AIRD, Plaintiff v. the MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. N17C-03-261 (Del. Super. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017). STEPHEN BODEN, Plaintiff v. the MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. N17C-03-262-PRW (Del. Super. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017). TAMMY MCINTOSH, Plaintiff v. the MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. N17C-03-268-AML (Del. Super. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017). THEODORE STEINHORST, Plaintiff v. the MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. N17C-03-269-WCC (Del. Super. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017). The lawsuits are action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Each of the lawsuits claimd that the Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A. 750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 656 5445 E-mail: Raeann@jcdelaw.com MULTICHOICE NIGERIA: Dstv Subscription Fees Increase Despite Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oladeinde Olawoyin, writing for Premium Times, reports that Nigerians have reacted with anger to the decision of satellite television provider, Multichoice Nigeria, to increase its Dstv and GOtv subscription fees by five percent. The decision, coming just over a year after a 20 per cent raise, was announced via text messages to subscribers on April 1. It will take effect from May 1. Subscribers slammed the company, accusing it of insensitivity given the current economic crisis that has made life difficult. A Facebook user, Chukwudi Iwuchukwu, said, "I just got this SMS from DSTV (containing notification of a price adjustment on Premium package fee which has changed from N13,980 to N14,700 effective 1 May 2017). Time to stop watching DSTV." Another subscriber, Rosy Chic, commenting on the planned hike, called for a protest. She also suggested that the Nigerian parliament should be informed about the issue too. "Let's protest and tag NASS," she posted on Facebook. Other subscribers, however, called for a boycott of the service provider and suggested alternative platforms. Okechukwu Nwoye said, "Our government is not helping matters at all. Why can't Nigeria have her own? We can call it any name and buy all those rights." Another Facebook user, Sharp Adekunle, lamented what he alleged to be the complicity of Nigerian leaders and the Dstv operators. "When your leaders are their number one beneficiaries, what do you expect? Even if you go to court, they have their seeds planted there," he posted. But the Managing Director, Multichoice Nigeria, John Ugbe, said the decision was made after careful consideration into the market and review of its business operations. "We announced last year that we would do everything possible to hold the price barring any extreme factors," he said in a press statement. "However, all our content is purchased in dollars and although we have done everything possible to hold the prices even with the price of everything else going up, we are now left with no choice but to adjust our subscription prices from 1 May," he added. "Our key priority is to put subscribers' needs at the heart of everything we do and therefore, in determining the price adjustment, we took into account many factors including, the impact on the customer, current inflation which stands at 19 per cent, programming costs and efficiencies within the company. "Please be assured that we have worked really hard to keep this year's fees manageable," he said. In April 2015, Multichoice announced a twenty percent increase in subscription fee across all its packages, amid public outrage. In response, two Lagos-based lawyers, Oluyinka Oyeniji and Osasuyi Adebayo, initiated a class action on behalf of millions of Nigerians who criticised the new subscription rates as exploitative and insensitive. The duo sought the order of the court to stop MultiChoice or its agents from implementing the 20 per cent hike in the fees charged subscribers. The protracted legal battle failed to effect any change. MYPILLOW INC: Class Action Over BOGO Ads Pending in Oregon ---------------------------------------------------------- Jim Hawkins, writing for Lebanon Democrat, reports that during the past several years, many Americans have seen infomercials promoting a Minnesota-made product called "My Pillow." My Pillow, Inc. has recently faced California and Oregon lawsuits that alleged false and deceptive advertising. The first My Pillow case addressed false advertising using unsupported medical claims. The second My Pillow case deals with deceptive "BOGO" or buy one, get one free promotions. Q. What happened in the first case involving My Pillow and unsupported medical claims? Consumers complained that My Pillow, Inc. used misleading claims in its ads. The company's website included testimonials claiming that My Pillow had the ability to help alleviate or lessen anxiety, migraines, acid reflux, menopause, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy and post-traumatic stress disorder, all without any scientific evidence. The state of California's Food, Drug and Medical Device Task Force sued to force My Pillow to stop its use of deceptive advertising. My Pillow settled the case and paid $995,000 in penalties, and donated $100,000 to nonprofit California agencies that deal with homelessness and domestic violence. My Pillow also agreed to stop making or using any claims not supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence. Q. What is involved in the second case about false BOGO ads? In Oregon, customers have filed a pending federal class action lawsuit which claims that they were tricked by My Pillow's BOGO advertising. The lawsuit states that customers were led to believe they were buying a first My Pillow at the regular price, and then getting a second My Pillow for free. Instead, the customers later learned that they had been charged at or near the combined regular price for two pillows. The Better Business Bureau has now revoked the accreditation of My Pillow and has downgraded its rating from "A" to "F" because of the many complaints of false advertising. James B. "Jim" Hawkins is a Tennessee general practice and public interest law attorney. This column represents legal information, and is not intended to take the place of legal advice. All cases are different and need individual attention. Consult with a private attorney of your choice to review the facts and law specific to your case. Please call 615-452-9200 to suggest topics or questions for future columns. NATROL LLC: "Stakutis" Sues Over Biotin Supplement Labels --------------------------------------------------------- Erica Stakutis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Natrol, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01865, (N.D. Cal., April 4, 2017), seeks injunctive relief, a corrective advertising campaign, attorneys' fees and costs and such further relief for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Defendant manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes biotin supplements, namely Biotin 5000 mcg Fast Dissolve, Biotin 10,000 mcg Maximum Strength, and Biotin 10,000 mcg Fast Dissolve. It's labelling indicates "promotes healthy hair and strong nails." Plaintiff argues that the body only needs a finite amount of biotin on a daily basis, and does not subscribe to the notion of "more is better" in the case of biotin, thus said biotin supplements sold by Defendant are unneeded, superfluous and will not provide any further benefits that are derived from the average daily diet, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 600 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798-4593 Email: psyverson@bffb.com mmuecke@bffb.com - and - Elaine A. Ryan, Esq. Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 Email: eryan@bffb.com claliberte@bffb.com - and - Stewart M. Weltman, Esq. Michael Chang, Esq. 17 North State Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 Email: sweltman@siprut.com mchang@siprut.com NEW JERSEY: "Wolf" Suit Transferred from S.D.N.Y. to D.N.J. ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled KARIN WOLF in propria persona; D and G (by mother and next friend Karin Wolf); and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY; COUNTY OF BERGEN, NEW JERSEY; NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS; STUART RABNER, Chief Justice, in his official capacity as Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court; PETER DOYNE, Judge, in his official capacity as Judge of the Bergen County Court; BONNIE J. MIZDOL, Judge, in her official capacity as Judge of the Bergen County Court; WILLIAM R. DELORENZO, Judge, in his official capacity as Judge of the Bergen County Court; JUDGE GERALD C. ESCALA, Judge, in his official capacity as Judge of the Bergen County Court; KATHY KATONA, ESQ., in her official capacity as court mediator of the Bergen County Court; Peter Van Aulen, Esq.; DR. JUDITH BROWN GREIF; BERGEN FAMILY CENTER; Northeast New Jersey Legal Services; NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY; and FULL CIRCLE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01624 (filed Mar. 3, 2017), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Mar. 30, 2017. The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02072 to the proceeding. New Jersey is a northeastern U.S. state with some 130 miles of Atlantic coast. Jersey City, across the Hudson River from Lower Manhattan, is the site of Liberty State Park, where ferries embark for nearby Ellis Island, with its historic Immigration Museum, and the iconic Statue of Liberty. The Jersey Shore includes notable resort towns like historic Asbury Park and Cape May, with its preserved Victorian buildings.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Jacoby & Meyers' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing, for failure to allege the infringement of any cognizable constitutional right, the complaint filed by Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, a limited liability partnership, and Jacoby & Meyers USA II, PLLC, a related professional limited liability company, challenging New York's rules, regulations, and statutes prohibiting non-attorneys from investing in law firms. The Plaintiffs assert that, were they able to do so, they would act on that ability in the interests of the potential clients. Because the laws currently restrict their ability to accomplish those goals, they maintain, the state regime unlawfully interferes with their rights as lawyers to associate with clients and to access the courts--rights they see as grounded in the First Amendment. In 2011, the LLP sued the Presiding Justices of the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Divisions (who administer Rule 5.4) and others, asserting that the rule violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. After an amendment of the complaint, a dismissal for lack of standing, and a successful appeal to the Second Circuit with respect to standing, the case was remanded to the District Court, at which point the J&M Firms filed a second amended complaint that attempted to articulate a constitutional challenge to the entire New York regulatory regime. The District Court again granted the state's motion to dismiss holding that the J&M Firms' amended complaint failed to state a claim for a violation of any constitutional right. On appeal, the J&M Firms abandon many of the constitutional challenges asserted in their prior complaints, and press only the argument that New York's prohibition of non-lawyer investment in law firms infringes their First Amendment rights to petition and to association. In an Order dated March 24, 2017, available at https://is.gd/vtzbYW from Leagle.com, the Second Circuit held that the J&M Firms they have failed to state a claim for relief because they have neither plausibly alleged that they possess any First Amendment rights implicated here nor that any First Amendment right they might generously be assumed to have has been infringed. The J&M Firms have no claim to the First Amendment rights of association and petition that the Supreme Court has recognized in political advocacy groups or in individuals seeking the vindication of their own rights through not-for-profit counsel, the Second Circuit held. And the New York regulations at issue here have at most an attenuated effect on the availability of attorney services to the population at large, the Second Circuit added. The appeals case is JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED ENTITIES AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK; JACOBY & MEYERS USA II, PLLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE PRESIDING JUSTICES OF THE FIRST, SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS, APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN; DIANE MAXWELL KEARSE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE SECOND, ELEVENTH AND THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTS; GARY L. CASELLA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT; GREGORY A. GREEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT; GREGORY J. HUETHER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE FIFTH, SEVENTH AND EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTS; PETER M. TORNCELLO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT, THIRD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT; MONICA DUFFY, Defendants- Appellees, Case No. 15-2608 (2nd Cir.). Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, et al. are represented by Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq. -- GBLANKINSHIP@FBFGLAW.COM -- FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP Eric T. Schneiderman, et al. are represented by: Andrew Rhys Davies, Esq. Barbara D. Underwood, Esq. Steven C. Wu, Esq. OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL 120 Broadway Fl 25 New York, NY 10271-0002 Tel: (212) 416-8018 NORTHERN DYNASTY: "Schubert" Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------- Harry Schubert, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., Ronald William Thiessen and Marchand Snyman, Defendants, Case No. 1:17- cv-02437 (S.D. N.Y., April 4, 2017) seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Northern Dynasty engages in the exploration and development of mineral properties in the United States. Its principal property is the Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum mineral project located in southwest Alaska. Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that the said Pebble Project carries a negative net present value, is not commercially viable, and is a low-grade deposit. On this news, Northern Dynasty's share price fell $0.68, or 21.38%, to close at $2.50 on February 14, 2017. Plaintiff owns Northern Dynasty stock. [BN] 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 - 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 OKLAHOMA: Federal Court Takeover of DHS Worst-Case Scenario ----------------------------------------------------------- EnidNews.com reports that five years ago, we suggested legislators needed to give the Pinnacle Plan a chance. The proposed "overhaul" was a reaction to the deaths of several children in state custody. Oklahoma's longtime Department of Human Services director had retired in 2012 after the state settled a class-action lawsuit over the safety of foster children. That settlement required major changes in the child welfare system in the areas of child abuse and neglect, adoption, caseworker visitation and workloads, and foster care. As part of the settlement, DHS has prepared the Pinnacle Plan, a series of reforms costing an additional estimated $100 million over the next five years. Every six months, a team checks and reports on our state's progress. If those monitors don't believe certain goals are achieved, Oklahoma can be sued again and face even more stringent sanctions. "Having a federal court come in and take over our DHS system is the worst possible solution because then it completely ties our budgetary hands and would require us to spend money that we really don't have," said House Minority Leader Scott Inman, D-Del City. But, he said that could be a reality if Pinnacle Plan funding is slashed to balance the budget. State lawmakers have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into bolstering the program to comply with the settlement. Specifically, the state has hired nearly 900 new caseworkers and supervisors, boosted the pay for those workers over three years and increased reimbursement rates for foster families in an effort to incentivize more Oklahomans to shelter displaced youth. However, possible budget cuts are putting all that in jeopardy. And it would be impossible to protect the program if a proposed 14 percent cut were to occur. House Minority Leader Scott Inman, D-Del City, has warned such a reduction could force a federal court to take over our DHS system. A worst-case scenario, that outcome would tie our budgetary hands and would require us to spend money that we really don't have. We hope Pinnacle Plan funding remains a top priority for the Oklahoma Legislature. OMNICARE INC: May 2 Case Management Conference Set in "Esomonu" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IJEOMA ESOMONU, Plaintiff, v. OMNICARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-02003-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and further set a Case Management Conference on May 2, 2017. The Court noted that the settlement agreement does not require the Plaintiff to file a motion or any declaration before being awarded $10,000 for her general release. Even if the Court ultimately rejects the $5,000 enhancement award, the Court finds that an award to Plaintiff of $10,000 compared to the $3.29 or even $18.18 award to class members undermines the overall fairness of the proposed settlement. The Court further noted the importance of careful drafting: If the parties intend the $10,0000 general release payment to require Court approval, then the settlement agreement should say so explicitly and the class notice should similarly alert class members that Plaintiff will seek such a payment. A copy of the Court's Order dated March 31, 2017 is available at https://goo.gl/9aMzXe from Leagle.com. Ijeoma Esomonu, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group. Omnicare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Chad Daniel Bernard -- BernardC@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Scott Philip Jang -- scott.jang@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. ORANGE LAKE: Faces "Epps" Suit Over FCRA Violations in Va. ---------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Dean Epps, et al., for themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. Orange Lake Country Club, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00253-JAG (E.D. Va., March 31, 2017) seeks damages, injunctive and declaratory relief and attorneys' fees for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The complaint says Defendants systematically violate 1681b(b)(2) of the FCRA by procuring consumer reports in the form of criminal background reports and driving record reports using two standardized consent forms which, among others things, require the job applicant to agree, as a condition of employment, that Defendants do not engage in discrimination. Defendants also require applicants to notify Defendants within five days of a challenge to the accuracy of the report (contrary to the provision of the FCRA). Orange Lake Country Club, Inc. operates a chain of clubs and resorts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Colt North, Esq. William Downing, Esq. The Consumer & Employee Rights Law Firm, P.C. 751-A Thimble Shoals Boulevard Newport News, VA 23606 Tel: (757) 873-1010 Fax: (757) 873-8375 Email: cnorthlaw@aol.com PAINTING FIRM: "Robinson" Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------- Melvis Juan Berlanga Villegas, Pedro Jose Serrano and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Painting Firm LLC, Charles R. Ansaroff, Jennifer L. Ansaroff, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60665 (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2017), seeks double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, costs, interest and any other relief as allowed by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Villegas and Serrano worked for Defendants as painters from September 15, 2015 to March 31, 2017 and September 15, 2015 to November 20, 2016, respectively. Both claim to have worked over 50 hours per week without being paid the necessary overtime premium. [BN] The 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 PAYPAL HOLDINGS: FTC Investigation into Venmo Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Nieh, writing for Crowdfund Insider, reports that on March 24, 2017, shareholders of PayPal Holdings Inc., the parent company of mobile-payment provider Venmo, filed a derivative suit against its directors in the District Court of Delaware. A derivative suit is a form of class action in which shareholders can sue company officers or directors on behalf of the company. 2016 Investigations for Unfair and Deceptive Practices In April and May of last year, Venmo was investigated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Texas Attorney General's Office for engaging in unfair and deceptive practices. Venmo eventually settled with the Texas Attorney General for a $175,000 fine and assurances that they would update their business practices. The investigation by the FTC is still ongoing. Current Allegations The plaintiff shareholders claim in the suit that the directors of PayPal willfully or recklessly caused PayPal to make false or misleading statements which led to direct damages against PayPal. The false and misleading statements are alleged to have been made in PayPal's quarterly reports, annual reports, and proxy statements which failed to disclose any of the alleged unfair and deceptive business practice or the fact that those practices would lead to increased regulatory scrutiny. The suit alleges that as a direct consequence of those investigations becoming public, the share price for PayPal immediately dropped by up to 14.6% in the following months. Defendants' answer is due by April 17. PEOPLE'S WATER: Donaldsonville Residents File Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- John Severance, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that many Donaldsonville residents are not happy about the quality of water and have filed a class action suit against Peoples Water Service. In their suit filed March 3, Courthouse News reported, the petitioners claimed the water service failed to take action or report chlorine-dioxide levels four to five times the standard in the water supply. The petitioners alleged the water company treated its supply with chlorine dioxide before distribution to customers. Chlorine dioxide is known to be harmful to humans at particular levels. The petitioners claimed that at about 4 p.m. March 22, 2016, the Louisiana Department of Health notified Peoples to change treatment of drinking water because elevated levels of chlorine dioxide were found in the treatment system. Donaldsonville Mayor Leroy Sullivan declared a state of emergency that night. They also claimed the water company failed to warn petitioners and those others of test result readings above acceptable levels from approximately September 2015 to March 2016. "As it stands, the water supplied by Peoples is not safe to consume in any manner by drinking and/or cooking for use in cooking. As a proximate result, petitioners and those others similarly situated have been forced to use bottled water and have therefore incurred damages in connection with obtaining water," the suit said. On March 23, 2016, Peoples issued a warning to residents: "Peoples Water is instructing its customers in Donaldsonville to not drink their water, effective immediately until further notice. Due to high levels of chlorine dioxide, residents should not drink, cook or ingest their water. Please go to a local retail/grocery store and purchase water for these purposes.'' On March 26, 2016, the water was declared safe to drink after tests were reportedly done at five different sample sites. Petitioners are looking for compensation from the following damages including "costs of and associated with obtaining another water source, inconvenience, fear and fright, mental anguish, discomfort, pain and suffering, emotional distress, medical and pharmaceutical costs and any other damages to be proven at trial." Listed on the petition were Horace Dorsey, Evelyn Dorsey, Brad Dorsey, Larry Rosemond, Dionelle Dorsey, Gardenia Taylor, Sterling Brooks, Blair Brooks, Carol Joshua, Idell Madison, Paul Madison, Tresa Winchester, Sharon Nicholas, Gerald Nicholas, Crystal Franklin and Malik Franklin. Jeff Nicholson, a Baton Rouge attorney, filed the lawsuit for the residents. PIZZATI ENTERPRISES: "Nieto" Has Conditional Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned WENDY NIETO, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PIZZATI ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05352- NJB-JCW (E.D. La.), the Hon. Nannette Jolivette Brown entered an order: a. denying Defendants' motion to stay Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification; b. granting in part and denying in part Nieto's motion for conditional class certification; The motion is granted in part to the extent that Nieto requests that the Court conditionally certify the proposed class, approve an opt-in period of 90 days, and require Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with the names and last known addresses of the potential opt-in plaintiffs within two weeks. The motion is denied in part to the extent that Nieto requests that the Court approve Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent form in its current form. c. directing Defendants that Notice shall be sent to: "all individuals who worked or are working performing manual labor for Pizzati Enterprises, Inc. or Pizzati Labor Services, Inc. during the previous three years, and who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and who did not receive full overtime compensation"; and d. directing parties to submit a joint proposed notice and consent form within 10 days of the date of this Order. If the parties are unable to agree on a proposed notice and consent form, the parties shall submit: (1) their proposed notices and consent forms; and (2) their objections, with supporting authority, to the other party's proposed notice and consent form, within 10 days of this Order, and request an expedited status conference on the matter. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cqEAmPHf PLANET FITNESS: Court Refuses to Reconsider Prior Dismissal Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied plaintiff's motion for partial reconsideration in the case captioned MARNI TRUGLIO, individually and as a class representative on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PLANET FITNESS, INC.; FIT TO BE TIED II, LLC d/b/a PLANET FITNESS; JOHN DOES 1-75; PLANET FITNESS FRANCHISES 1-75; AND XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-7959 (FLW)(LHG) (D.N.J.). On September 28, 2015, plaintiff Marni Truglio brought a suit against defendants in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division. On October 19, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, setting forth claims, individually and on behalf of a putative class, under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 to -18 (count I), and the Health Club Services Act (HCSA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-39 to - 48, and the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -195 (count II). The case started when plaintiff sought to enroll in a health club membership in defendants' organization and was provided by defendants with a membership agreement. Plaintiff executed the membership agreement and contends that the agreement's terms violated New Jersey law by failing to state that a bond or other security was filed with the Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs and that defendants failed to maintain such bond or other security), by failing to conspicuously disclose plaintiff's total payment obligation, by obligating plaintiff to renew her contract and imposing misleading requirements to cancel her health club membership. Defendants removed the action to the District of New Jersey Court on November 6, 2015, and moved to dismiss on December 4. On July 28, 2016, the court issued an opinion and order dismissing count II, plaintiff's CFA and HCSA claims, without prejudice, and dismissing count I, plaintiff's TCCWNA claim, with prejudice, to the extent based on omissions in the membership agreement. The court ordered defendants, within twenty days, to show cause why the matter should not be remanded to the New Jersey state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the class action fairness act. On August 9, 2016, defendant Planet Fitness, Inc., submitted a certification that, given the number of Planet Fitness members included in the proposed class, plaintiff's surviving TCCWNA claim continues to meet the amount in controversy requirement for subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. Defendant Planet Fitness joined in Planet Fitness Inc.'s certification by letter, on August 10, 2016. Plaintiff moved for partial reconsideration of the court's July opinion and order on August 11, 2016. Plaintiff's motion requests that the court reconsider its decision to dismiss plaintiff's TCCWNA claim based on the omission of language allegedly required by HCSA N.J.S.A. 56:8-42(b), or, in the alternative, requests that the court dismiss that TCCWNA claim without prejudice so that plaintiff may move for leave to amend. Judge Wolfson held that plaintiff's motion clearly does not meet the standard required for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). It claims no intervening change of law, in fact claiming to follow the persuasive authority of the Third Circuit in Watkins v. DineEquity Inc., 591 Fed. Appx. 132 (3d Cir. 2014), which the court itself considered and applied in its original opinion. It presents no new evidence, relying upon the same facts alleged in the amended complaint that were previously before the court. Finally, it fails to identify any clear error of fact or law, requesting only that the court reconsider its particular application of the admittedly persuasive authority of the Third Circuit in Watkins. Judge Wolfson denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration under under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and L. Civ. R. 7.1. A copy of Judge Wolfson's opinion dated March 31, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/oyGZJa from Leagle.com. MARNI TRUGLIO, Plaintiff, represented by: BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF, Esq. JOSEPH K. JONES, Esq. Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Tel: 973-227-5900 Fax: 973-244-0019 PLANET FITNESS, INC., Defendant, represented by CRAIG R. TRACTENBERG -- KURT MICHAEL MULLEN -- kmullen@nixonpeabody.com -- at NIXON PEABODY, LLP FIT TO BE TIED II, LLC, Defendant, represented by LOUIS A. FELICETTA -- at CARLUCCIO LEONE PLATINUM HOME: Faces "Severin" Suit in N.Y. Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Platinum Home Health Care Inc. The case is captioned as Natasha Severin, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated Who Were Employed By Platinum Home Health Care Inc., the Plaintiff, v. Platinum Home Health Care Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 153301/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Apr. 7, 2017). Platinum Home was established in 2006 to provide home care services to homebound individuals in Southeast Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Virginia & Ambinder, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, New York 10004 Phone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Flushable Wipes Class Action Can Go Ahead ----------------------------------------------------------- Georgina Caldwell, writing for Global Cosmetic News, reports that a US Federal judge has given the go-ahead for a class action suit, launched against several manufacturers of flushable wipes, including Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark, according to a report published by the Cincinnati Business Courier. The suit is open only to applicants who purchased the contentious wipes in the state of New York and will be divided into groups according to the product purchased: P&G's Charmin Freshmates, any flushable wipes from Kimberly-Clark's portfolio and Kirkland Signature wipes from Costco. The wipes are said to have caused back-ups across the US sewer systems, causing wastewater to escape sewer overflows. Complainants contend that the wipes are falsely marketed as 'flushable'. RADIO RENTAL: Thorn Group Disputes Class Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------ Fergus Halliday, writing for ChannelNews, reports that The Thorn Group, parent company of Radio Rental has defended claims that it overcharged vulnerable or disadvantaged customers through its "Rent Try $1 Buy" scheme. The company pledged to defend itself in court in a statement posted to the ASX. "Thorn Australia will defend the claim in the ordinary course of the class action process. It is anticipated that the process could take a significant length of time, perhaps years, to run its course." "The company will update the market if there are any further material developments." A class action lawsuit was launched by compensation firm Maurice Blackburn. The law firm claim that Radio Rentals "imposes on its disadvantaged customers onerous and unfair terms that avoid credit laws that prohibit overcharging", forcing victims to pay up to seven times the retail cost of the rented item. They argue that if their case is successful, the outcome could affect up to 200,000 people and refund a total of $50 million. They say they'll be conducting the case on a "no win no fee" basis and encourage those affected to participate as claimants with the firm. REAL TIME: Approval of $1.3MM "Tannlund" Case Settlement Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Michelle Lee Tannlund, et al., the Plaintiff, v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-05149 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order: 1. preliminarily approving Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate; 2. preliminarily approving the Claim Form and the forms of Class Notice; 3. setting a date and time for a Final Approval Hearing, not earlier than 135 days after entry of the Preliminary Approval Order; 4. provisionally certifying a proposed Settlement Class under Rule 23 for the purposes of settlement only; 5. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative; 6. appointing undersigned as Class Counsel; and 7. providing for such other and further matters as the Court deems just and proper. The Settlement allows Settlement Class Members to receive a pro rata cash payment from a $1.3 million common fund, after deducting Class Counsel's fees and an incentive award for the named Plaintiff. This payment is estimated at $25, derived by assuming (a) a claims rate at 6% of approximately 425,000 class members; (b) attorneys' fees and costs at 50% of the common fund; and (c) class representative's service award at $15,000. If these assumptions are too aggressive -- especially the claims rate, which at 6% may be high for TCPA class actions even with direct notice by first class mail -- then the payout will be higher as a result. For example, if the claims rate is the same as in a recent settlement (0.97%), then the payout with the above assumptions would be $154, which is six times higher. Even with a conservative assumption of a 6% rate, the estimated payout compares favorably with similar common fund TCPA cases. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BfVDo1Mr 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 REPUBLIC SCHOOLS: Class Action Over Spam Texts Can Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------- Todd Kominiak, writing for TrustED, reports that schools pull out stops to win students a lawsuit brought by public school parents in Nashville, Tenn., against an area charter school network received class-action status. According to News Channel 5, the lawsuit accuses RePublic Schools Nashville of spamming local parents with text messages aimed at siphoning students from Nashville Metro Public Schools to the company's for-profit charter school network. In total, close to 4,000 parents received the texts. Attorneys representing aggrieved parents are now seeking $1,500 in damages for each message. It remains to be seen whether the parents will win their legal battle. Either way, the story shines a light on a reality that many public leaders suddenly face: Competition from charter schools, private vouchers, and other alternatives is real. And many of these schools are investing in marketing to attract families. Joel Gagne is president of Allerton Hill Consulting, a marketing firm that contracts with public schools. His take: Public schools need to step up their game if they want to compete with other providers. "K12 leaders have to adopt the mentality that they are competing for these students. And they must understand that this is no longer a fair fight." Every trick in the book A quick Google search for "charter school marketing" produces dozens of how-tos and handbooks for charter and private schools looking to market their services to students. In a new guide on school market share and competition released by K12 Insight (K12 Insight produces TrustED), Mr. Gagne explains the extent to which charter schools in one Ohio community were willing to go to win market share: "They were sending these cards statewide. These guys are on television. They have Jack Hanna -- the famous zoo guy -- in their TV ads. They're actively marketing for students, not just on television and in print, but through social media. They're selling the promise of technology: Sign up for our charter school, and you can get an iPad or a free laptop." In one case, he says, a charter school provider gave out free ice cream to students who signed up for their schools. Sewickley Academy, Pittsburgh's oldest private school, uses inbound marketing, social media, blog posts, and gated content resources to attract new students, according to Emily Cretella of Cursive Content Marketing. School marketing works Ms. Cretella says the Academy saw an increase in web traffic and a 30-percent jump in enrollment as a result of concentrated marketing campaigns. Charter schools, too, have seen a spike in enrollment -- a 62- percent nationwide increase from 2011 to 2016, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. The appearance of competition doesn't mean that public schools necessarily need to invest in advertising or put up billboards to keep families from leaving. But it does mean they need to do more to demonstrate their value -- and to effectively nurture the relationships they have with students and families. RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: NJ Court Grants Bid to Dismiss FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned, THOMAS E. ST. PIERRE, in his own right and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RETRIEVAL- MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-2596 (FLW)(DEA)(D.N.J.). In the putative class action, Plaintiff Thomas E. St. Pierre alleges that defendant Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq., because Defendant, a debt collector, mailed Plaintiff, and other similarly situated debtors, envelopes with glassine windows through which their account number and other personal information was visible. In the Amended Complaint are straightforward. Plaintiff alleges that he contracted with New Jersey E-ZPass (E-ZPass) to participate in its electronic toll payment program (Agreement), which allows tolls to be collected from an E-ZPass account through an electronic transponder. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant sent him a collection letter, dated November 11, 2013, attempting to recover $60.06, which "constituted a combination of unpaid tolls and associated penalties. In his single-count Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant violated Section 1692f(8) of the FDCPA "by sending E-ZPass collection letters to Plaintiff and members of the putative Class in envelopes with glassine windows through which their account numbers were made visible." On August 17, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, or, in the alternative, stay the action pending the outcome of the Supreme Court's decisions in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 663 (2016) and/or Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016). On January 6, 2016, this Court ordered a stay of the proceedings. After the Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the stay of proceedings. On June 16, 2016, the Court ordered that the stay be lifted, but administratively terminated the pending motion to dismiss. On August 19, 2016, at the instruction of the Court, Defendant renewed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Defendant argues that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to allege a concrete harm sufficient to establish Article III standing. In the alternative, Defendant contends that the obligation it seeks to recover -- the delinquent toll charges and penalties -- is not a "debt" as defined by the FDCPA. In response, Plaintiff contends that he has alleged sufficient concrete harm because Defendant disclosed his private information by sending two collection letters that made visible his account number. Moreover, Plaintiff argues that Defendant was attempting to collect a "debt" within the meaning of the FDCPA, because the obligation to pay the outstanding tolls and penalties arose from the E-ZPass Agreement, which is a consensual transaction. In an Opinion dated March 24, 2017 available at https://is.gd/WEOoIt from Leagle.com, Judge Wolfson held that none of the obligations that Defendant attempted to recover from Plaintiff arise out of the Agreement and that Defendant was not attempting to collect a "debt" within the meaning of the FDCPA. Thomas E. St. Pierre is represented by Christopher Markos, Esq. -- cmarkos@wcblegal.com -- WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. is represented by Han Sheng Beh, Esq. -- hbeh@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP RICK WOLF LANDSCAPE: "Gomez" Sues for Unpaid Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Victoriano Angeles-Gomez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. Rick Wolf Landscape, LLC, Frederic Louis Wolf and Virginia S. Wolf, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00009-BO (E.D. N.C., March 31, 2017) seeks to recover overtime pay, attorney's fees, interest and costs for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs performed landscaping work for Defendants. Defendant Rick Wolf Landscape LLC offers Landscaping Services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert J. Willis, Esq. Law Office of Robert J. Willis, P.A., West Hargett Street, Suite 404 P.O. Box 1269 Raleigh, NC 27602 Tel: (919) 821-9031 Fax: (919) 821-1763 Email: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com RJ AMERICAN: "Gentile" Seeks to Rescind Portfolio Transfer ---------------------------------------------------------- Frank Gentile, as trustee for the Frank Gentile Revocable Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RJ American Homes 4 Rent Investments LLC, and American Homes for Rent, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC656070 (Cal. Super., April 3, 2017), seeks damages, voiding of the transfer of Plaintiff's portfolio to American Homes, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorney's fees and such further relief arising from civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duties and breach of contact. RJ American Homes 4 Rent One, LLC owns and operates a specified portfolio of 177 houses in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina and Texas. It acquires homes at favorable pricing, then rent out the property to third-parties. To augment the generation of cash flow from rental activity and capital appreciation, it raised money from third-party investors, including the Plaintiff. Plaintiff's membership interest was purchased by American Homes for Rent, LLC at an artificially undervalued price, allowing them to acquire the portfolio at a price significantly less than its true market value, says the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah L. Hennessy, Esq. Raquel A. Flaherty, Esq. FLAHERTY HENNESSY, LLP 8055 W. Manchester Avenue, Suite 420 Playa Del Rey, CA 90293 Telephone: (310) 305-1280 Fax: (310)305-1210 RUSHMORE LOAN: "Bovin" Class Certification Bid Denied ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned STEVEN BOVIN, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01055-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order terminating motion for class certification for administrative purposes. The Court said, "The plaintiffs filed what the court commonly refers to as a "protective" or "placeholder" motion to certify a class. Concurrently the plaintiffs requested to stay briefing on the motion. The court grants plaintiffs' motion to stay briefing on this motion. However, the court regards the motion as pending to the extent a pending motion is required to satisfy the plaintiffs' intended protective purpose in light of Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), and Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016)". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2aLZ0L1U SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Kellas" Suit Over Washing Machines -------------------------------------------------------------- CANDICE KELLAS, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff, vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, THE HOME DEPOT, INC., LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, BEST BUY CO., INC., and SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01232-MHC (N.D. Ga., April 5, 2017), is a case over the recalled models of Samsung top- load washing machines (Recall # 17-028). Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other purchasers of the Recalled Washing Machines in the United States and its possessions or territories from March 2011 to November 2016. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of: (1) an injunction against Defendants preventing any further sales of the Recalled Washing Machines and requiring such other remedial action as may otherwise be requested herein; and (2) money damages to adequately and reasonably compensate owners of the Recalled Washing Machines who have, through no fault of their own, purchased defective and dangerous Samsung washing machines. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics and digital products in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Bain, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC 1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1050 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 724-9990 Fax: (404) 724-9986 E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: 405.235.1560 Fax: 405.239.2112 - and - 2926 Maple Ave., Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75201 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com SANTILLAN FOUNDATION: Faces "Barrera" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Julio Barrera, on behalf of himself individually and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dairon Bonilla d/b/a Santillan Foundation, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01013 (S.D. Tex., April 1, 2017) is brought against the Defendant for non-payment of overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Complaint says Defendant Dairon Bonilla d/b/a Santillan Foundation have a policy, enforced at all of its locations, of denying Plaintiffs and putative class members compensation at time and a half, and paying only straight time for hours worked above 40 per week. Plaintiff Julio Barrera worked for Defendants as an AC Installer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. The Foley Law Firm 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Tel: (832) 778-8182 Fax: (832) 778-8353 Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Romano Wants Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled ROSARIA ROMANO, on behalf of plaintiff and a class, the plaintiff, v. SCHACHTER PORTNOY, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-01014-ARR-CLP (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court that her motion for class certification be entered and continued until such time as the Court has entered a schedule for the litigation of the case. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZtAoUZ7Z The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 E-mail: courteel@edcombs.com - and - Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1214 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 373 9128 SCI DIRECT: Faces "Romano" Wage and Hour Suit --------------------------------------------- Nicole Romano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SCI DIRECT, INC. and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BQ656654 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017), seeks to recover compensation, damages, penalties and interest to the full extent permitted by the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders. The complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code, and applicable IWC wage order against employees of Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard of the rights of all employees in, among other things, failing to provide the statutorily required meal and rest periods and failing to pay the statutorily required meal period and rest period premium wages when not provided, failing to pay all minimum, regular and overtime wages due, failing to pay wages in a timely fashion, including at the end of employment, mis-classifying employees so as to avoid payment of wages, and failing to keep statutorily required payroll records.[BN] SCI Direct is a division of Service Corporation International that is responsible for all direct cremation sales and services in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M, FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com SIGNET JEWELERS: Faces "Mikolchak" Class Suit in TX --------------------------------------------------- Maria Mikolchak, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Signet Jewelers Limited, Mark S. Light and Michael Barnes, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00923-B (N.D. Tex., March 31, 2017) seeks to recover compensable damages on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Signet from August 29, 2013 through February 27, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). According to the complaint, Defendants released statements that were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) approximately 250 former employees of Sterling Jewelers, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Signet, claimed in sworn statements that Sterling executive presided over a corporate culture that fostered rampant sexual harassment and discrimination; (2) the current CEO of Signet, Defendant Mark Light, was among those accused of having sex with female employees and promoting women based upon how they responded to sexual demands; (3) it was unlikely that Signet would be able to avoid paying a sizable amount of damages in connection with the class action lawsuit filed by Sterling employees and (4) 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 times. On March 7, 2017, the Financial Times published an article entitled "Signet Jewelers is S&P 500's worst performer so far this year". According to the article, Signet's stock drop of nearly 13% on February 28, 2017, was "its biggest one-day drop in 8 years -- after the Washington Post reported that former employees of Sterling Jewelers filed a private class-action arbitration case alleging discrimination, among other claims." Signet Jewelers Limited is a retailer of diamond jewelry. The Company claims to operate thousands of stores in North America, and some in the United Kingdom. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Dean Gresham, Esq. L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq. Steckler Gresham Cochran 12720 Hillcrest Rd, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Tel: (972) 387-4040 Fax: (972) 387-4041 Email: dean@stecklerlaw.com krogers@stecklerlaw.com - and - 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 SKYLER ELECTRIC: "Patton" Seeks OT Pay, Missed Break Premiums ------------------------------------------------------------- Keenan Patton an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Skyler Electric Co., Inc. and Does 1 thru 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CG-17-557943, (Cal. Super., April 4, 2017), seeks compensation for missed meal breaks, overtime pay and reimbursement of business-related expenses, compensatory damages and costs of suit for violation of the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Skyler Electric employed Patton as a Telecommunications Technician. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Tel: (818) 990-8300 Fax: (818) 990-2903 SLATER & GORDON: Investors File Fresh Class Action Claim -------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Danckert, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that Slater and Gordon has been served with a fresh letter of demand from aggrieved shareholders in a second class action. The fresh claim includes allegations Slater and Gordon misled its investors about its financial position between August 2014 and February 2016. The claim period takes in Slater and Gordon's $1.3 billion acquisition of the professional services arm of UK group Quindell, which blew up within months of being purchased due to accounting irregularities. But the claim also alleges Slater and Gordon's accounts included mistakes well ahead of the Quindell acquisition. ACA alleges that between August 12, 2014 and February 29, 2016, Slater and Gordon made more than 20 statements to the market relating to its financial results and profit guidance that contained errors. ACA Lawyers is understood to have sent the demand last week on behalf of shareholders in the class action claim being run by the firm. A spokeswoman for Slater and Gordon said allegations are denied and will be defended vigorously. ACA principal Bruce Clarke said the letter to Slater and Gordon listed "a number of accounting failures which we see as fundamental". "These relate to specific failures to identify intangibles in the business acquisition, various understatements or overstatements, both of which had a damaging impact, and a real failure despite their assertion of adopting certain accounting guidelines to properly recognise revenue in accordance with one of the accounting standards and also applying a number of unreasonable assumptions," Mr Clarke said. According to Mr Clarke, Slater and Gordon also allegedly failed to recognised the impacts of regulatory changes in the UK and did not treat the end of the agreement between Swinton and the professional services division of Quindell as an impairment indicator. "We've identified these and a number of other issues in respect to what we see as accounting failures as representing either misleading statements or a failure to comply with the continuous disclosure rules," Mr Clarke said. It's the second class action claim to hit the group over its alleged lax disclosure of its accounting issues. The first claim was filed on behalf of shareholders in an action being run by Maurice Blackburn. Fairfax Media revealed last month that claim was expected to head for mediation following concerns that Slater and Gordon's impending restructure will be designed to affectively ring-fence the assets in the group from claims from unsecured creditors, including class action claimants. According to the letter seen by Fairfax Media, ACA and its clients in the claim have reserved their right to intervene in the impending restructure of the group if Slater and Gordon won't allow their claim into upcoming mediation discussions with Maurice Blackburn. "Of course it is unfair the shareholders who have supported the company, supported the senior executive through those years, could be left totally stranded [by the restructure]," Mr Clarke said. Slater and Gordon is expected to restructure in coming weeks through a debt for equity swap that is expected to be highly dilutive for existing shareholders. On March 31 the company revealed it had received a $72 million boost from its new lenders, which are mainly made up of hedge funds, by way of a $40 million capital injection and the agreement to capitalise $32 million in interest payments due in June this year. SODEXO INC: "Piveronas" Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled ROBERT PIVERONAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. SODEXO, INC., the Defendant, Case No. G.D. 17- 003369, was removed on April 7, 2017 from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00446-RCM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell. Sodexo Inc. provides outsourced food and facilities management services. The Company offers housekeeping, grounds keeping, and plant operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Pietz, Esq. Ruairi McDonnell, Esq. FEINSTEIN, DOYLE, PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC 429 Fourth Avenue Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281 8400 Facsimile: (412) 281 1007 E-mail: jpietz@fdpklaw.com rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Maria Greco Danaher, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One PPG Place, Suite 1900 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 394 3390 Facsimile: (412) 232 1799 E-mail: maria.danaher@ogletreedeakins.com STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Faces "Kuckuk" Suit in Calif. State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stephens Institute. The case is entitled as KUCKUK, LINDA IN THEIR JOINT CAPACITIES AS INTERSTATE SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO AARYN GOLDBERG, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; and GOLDBERG, BENNETT IN THEIR JOINT CAPACITIES AS INTERSTATE SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO AARYN GOLDBERG, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. STEPHENS INSTITUTE A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. CGC 17 557866 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 30, 2017).[BN] SUMMONS REAL CARE: "Nesterenko" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- ALLA NESTERENKO, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by REAL CARE, INC., the Plaintiffs, v. SUMMONS REAL CARE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 153251/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017), seeks to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive pursuant to the New York Labor Law, New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations, and New York Public Health Law. The case is brought on behalf of the Named Plaintiff and a putative class of individuals who are citizens of the State of New York and are presently or were formerly employed by the Defendant to provide personal care, assistance, health-related tasks and other home care services to Defendant's clients within the State of New York. The Defendant has allegedly maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread of hours" compensation. Real Care is a family owned and operated organization that began providing services to individuals with developmental disabilities in 2007.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com TGI FRIDAYS: "Calabrese" Suit Seeks Certification of Two Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled ADAM CALABRESE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. TGI FRIDAYS INC., et al., the Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-00868-JCJ (E.D. Pa.), Mr. Calabrese moves the Court for an order granting (i) certification of a Pennsylvania Class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, (ii) certification of a New Hampshire Class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, and (iii) issuance of Notice to all members of the proposed Classes. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ezfs4W3l The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 822 3700 Facsimile: (610) 822 3800 E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com rgray@cwglaw.com - and - Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq. Demetri A. Braynin, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite "A" Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364 5030 Facsimile: (215) 364 5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com dbraynin@kalraylaw.com TITAN SOLAR: Faces "Payton" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of TCPA -------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN PAYTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TITAN SOLAR POWER, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:17- cv-02619 (C.D. Cal., April 5, 2017), accuses Defendants of negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. Defendant, TITAN SOLAR POWER is an online marketing company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com TOTAL GAS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Gas Price Manipulation Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge John G. Koeltl of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned, ALAN HARRY, LEVANTE CAPITAL, LLC, PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON (D/B/A CLARK PUBLIC UTILITIES), and C&C TRADING, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOTAL GAS & POWER NORTH AMERICA, INC., TOTAL, S.A., TOTAL GAS & POWER LIMITED, and JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 1 OF 15-cv-9689 (JGK)(S.D.N.Y.). The case is a putative class action under the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman and Clayton Acts alleging manipulation of prices for physical and financial natural gas contracts. Alan Harry, Levante Capital, LLC, Public Utilities District No. 1 of Clark County, Washington (d/b/a Clark Public Utilities), and C&C Trading, LLC (the plaintiffs) engaged in transactions in the physical and financial natural gas markets, including on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE). The plaintiffs allege that Total Gas & Power North America, Inc. (TGPNA), Total, S.A. (Total), and Total Gas & Power Limited (TGPL) (defendants) manipulated the price of physical natural gas at four regional hubs in the southwestern United States between 2009 and 2012. They further allege that such manipulation caused economic harm to the plaintiffs' physical and financial natural gas contracts -- which contracts were tied to natural gas prices at a separate hub, the Henry Hub in Louisiana -- on the theory that manipulation at the regional hubs inevitably impacts prices at the Henry Hub. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of individuals who, between June 1, 2009 and June 30, 2012 (the Class Period), purchased and/or sold physical natural gas contracts or derivative financial natural gas contracts either over-the-counter or on an electronic platform or other exchange at prices "made artificial" by the defendants' alleged manipulation. The CAC alleges that plaintiff Alan Harry "entered into many hundreds of transactions in natural gas futures and financial contracts throughout the Class Period," including "natural gas futures, options and swaps on NYMEX and ICE" during several bid weeks throughout the Class Period. All defendants now move to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint (CAC) for lack of Article III standing and failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Total and TGPL (the foreign defendants) also move to dismiss the CAC under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. In an Opinion and Order dated March 27, 2017 available at https://is.gd/zSzuVf from Leagle.com, Judge Keoltl held that the CAC was insufficiently pled because plaintiffs failed to provide details of their own positions in the market," their alleged damages are "merely conceivable." Alan Harry, et al. are represented by Bernard Persky, Esq. -- BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com -- Hollis L. Salzman, Esq. -- Hsalzman@RobonsKaplan.com -- and -- Kellie Lerner, Esq. -- Klerner@RobinsKaplan.com -- ROBINS, KAPLAN LLP -- Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. -- telrod@kmllp.com -- David E. Kovel, Esq. -- dkovel@kmllp.com -- and -- Karen M. Lerner, Esq. -- klerner@kmllp.com -- KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP Total Gas & Power North America, Inc., et al. are represented by Aric Hugo Wu, Esq. -- awu@gibsondunn.com -- David Debold, Esq. -- ddebold@gibsondunn.com -- Jason J. Fleischer, Esq. -- jfleischer@gibsondunn.com -- Michael S. Marron, Esq. -- mmarron@gibsondunn.com -- and -- William S. Scherman, Esq. -- wscherman@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP TRUMP UNIVERSITY: California Judge OKs Class Rep Award of $15,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the parties' joint motion for final approval of the proposed class action settlement in the case styled SONNY LOW, J.R. EVERETT and JOHN BROWN, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, and DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants. ART COHEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant, Case Nos. 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG, 3:13-cv-02519-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.). On December 19, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation of class action settlement, after arm's-length settlement negotiations overseen by the Honorable Jeffrey T. Miller. On the following day, the court, after determining the proposed settlement to be fair, reasonable, adequate, and within the range of possible approval, entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, directing dissemination of the class notice, and setting a final approval hearing. On January 17, 2017, Trump University's successor entity, Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, paid the full $25 million settlement amount to the escrow agent. The escrow agent distributed $4 million to the New York Attorney General for settlement of the NYAG action pursuant to the agreement and the memorandum of agreement. The remaining $21 million has been invested and is earning interest for the benefit of class members. The settlement administrator received a total of 4,090 claim forms from potential class members submitted or postmarked by March 6, 2017. On February 17, 2017, the parties jointly moved the court for final approval of the proposed class action settlement. Plaintiffs also moved for approval of class representative awards. Judge Curiel concludes that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and granted the parties' joint motion for final approval of the settlement and granted plaintiffs' motion for approval of class representative incentive award of $15,000 for Sonny Low, J.R. Everett, John Brown, Art Cohen, and Tarla Makaeff. The parties and the settlement administrator are directed to implement the agreement according to its terms and conditions. The parties are authorized for purposes of implementing the agreement, without further approval from the court, to agree to and to adopt such non-substantive amendments, modifications, and expansions of the agreement. The actions, including the individual claims of plaintiffs and class claims resolved therein, will be dismissed. A copy of Judge Curiel's order dated March 31, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/LeLatb from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron M. Olsen -- aarono@zhlaw.com -- Amber Lee Eck -- ambere@zhlaw.com -- Alreen Haeggquist -- alreenh@zhlaw.com -- at Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP; Daniel Jacob Pfefferbaum -- dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com -- Jason A. Forge -- jforge@rgrdlaw.com -- Maureen E. Mueller -- mmueller@rgrdlaw.com - - Patrick J. Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- Rachel L. Jensen -- rachelj@rgrdlaw.com -- Thomas R. Merrick -- Brian E. Cochran -- bcochran@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Donald J Trump and Trump University, LLC, Defendants, represented by Daniel M. Petrocelli -- dpetrocelli@omm.com -- David Lee Kirman -- dkirman@omm.com -- David Marroso -- dmarroso@omm.com -- Wallace Moore Allan -- tallan@omm.com -- at O'Melveny & Myers LLP; Jeffrey L. Goldman -- at Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP; Jill Ann Martin -- at Trump National Golf Club Trump University, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Daniel M. Petrocelli -- dpetrocelli@omm.com -- David Lee Kirman -- dkirman@omm.com -- at O'Melveny & Myers LLP; Jeffrey L. Goldman -- at Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP; Jill Ann Martin -- at Trump National Golf Club Tarla Makaeff, Counter Defendant, represented by Amber Lee Eck -- ambere@zhlaw.com -- at Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP; Rachel L. Jensen -- rachelj@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd LLP UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Sherman" Wage and Hour Suit ----------------------------------------------------- RYAN SHERMAN, as an individual and BC656880 on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC656880 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017), seeks to recover all applicable penalties pursuant to Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), for violation of Labor Code section 204, on behalf of the following aggrieved employees: all current and former employees of Defendant who worked as Uber drivers, and were paid wages at any time during the period of time from January 19, 2016 to the present. The complaint asserts that the Uber drivers are entitled to between seventy-five to eighty percent of the fare charged to customers, and Defendants retain a twenty to twenty-five percent service fee, in addition to a booking fee of $1.65. However, when Defendants pay drivers, Defendants do not pay drivers based on the full amount of the actual fare charged to customers. Instead, Defendants provide the driver with a wage that is based on a percentage that is less than the actual fare charged to customers. Uber is a transportation network company headquartered in San Francisco, California, United States, operating in 570 cities worldwide. It develops, markets and operates the Uber car transportation and food delivery mobile apps.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488 6555 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Rimel" Suit Proceeds to Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT RIMEL, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC and RASIER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:15-cv-2191-Orl-41CEM (M.D. Fla.), District Judge Carlos E. Mendoza adopted and confirmed Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding's Report and Recommendation granting the Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Strike Class Action Allegations. The Court noted that the Plaintiff does not challenge the Magistrate Judge's finding that the Arbitration Provision and Delegation Clause are enforceable under Florida Law. Instead, the Plaintiff contends that the Delegation Clause and the Arbitration Provision are unenforceable under California law and that the Magistrate Judge erred by not applying the California choice of law provision contained in the Services Agreement. The Court further noted that the Magistrate correctly found that (a) the Florida law, not California law, applies to the Arbitration Provision; (b) the Arbitration Provision and the Delegation Clause are not unconscionable; (c) the terms of the Delegations Clause are clear and unmistakable; and, (d) the class action waiver in the Arbitration Provision should be enforced. The Court ordered that: (1) the Report and Recommendation is adopted and confirmed and made a part of the Order; (2) the Defendants' Motion to Compel and Strike Class Action Allegations is granted; (3) the parties shall proceed to arbitration within 30 days of the Order and the action shall be stayed until such time as the parties' arbitration proceedings have been completed; (4) on or before July 14, 2017, and every 90 days thereafter, the parties shall file a status report as to the status of the arbitration. Additionally, within 10 days of the termination of the arbitration proceedings, the parties shall notify the Court; and (5) the Clerk is directed to administratively close the file, subject to the right of any party to apply to reopen the action upon good cause shown. A copy of the Court's Order dated March 31, 2017 is available at https://goo.gl/OylaAv from Leagle.com. Robert Rimel, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Weiner -- brittany@lawicm.com -- Imbesi Law PC, pro hac vice. Robert Rimel, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Frederick Aylstock, Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC, Douglass A. Kreis, Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC, Justin Graem Witkin, Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC, Neil Duane Overholtz, Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC, Paul Brian Maslo, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice, Salvatore Charles Badala, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice, Stephen Herre Echsner, Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC & Ephraim Samuel Geisler, Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Courtney B. Wilson -- cwilson@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC & Melanie Andre Zaharias -- mzaharias@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC. US PHYSICAL: Faces "Culhane" Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Maura Culhane, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc., Christopher J. Reading, Lawrance W. McAfee and Jon C. Bate, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02347 (S.D. N.Y., March 31, 2017) seeks to recover damages on behalf of persons and entities that acquired USPh's securities between May 8, 2014 and March 16, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), against the Defendants. The Complaint says throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company had a material weakness in its internal controls over accounting and financial reporting; (2) that the Company improperly accounted for redeemable non- controlling interests of acquired partnerships in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");(3) that, as a result, the Company's financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 and all quarters within 2014 and 2015 and the first three quarters of 2016 contained material errors and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about USPh's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On this news, the price of USPh common stock fell $3.85 per share or 5.2%, to close at $69.90 per share on March 16, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock price continued to decline in the following trading days, falling $1.75 per share (2.5%) on March 17, 2017, $0.25 per share (0.3%) on March 20, 2017 and $3.15 per share (4.6%) on March 21, 2017, to close at $64.75 per share on March 21, 2017. Defendant U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc. is incorporated in Nevada and its headquarters are in Houston, Texas. USPh's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol "USPH". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Tel: (212) 682-5340 Fax: (212) 884-0988 Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160 USAA CASUALTY: MAO-MSO Recovery Sues Over MAOs Reimbursement ------------------------------------------------------------ MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity; MSP RECOVERY, LLC, a Florida entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida entity, Plaintiffs, vs. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-21289-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 5, 2017), alleges that Defendant failed to fulfill its statutorily-mandated duty under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Medicare Act to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations ("MAOs") for medical treatments or expenses paid by Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members on behalf of Defendant's insureds. USAA Property and Casualty Insurance Group is a private passenger auto insurer and property insurer. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank C. Quesada, Esq. Christine M. Lugo, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 E-mail: Fquesada@msprecovery.com serve@msprecovery.com - and - Christopher L. Coffin, Esq. Tracy L. Turner, Esq. Courtney L. Stidham, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Phone: (504) 355-0086 E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com tturner@pbclawfirm.com cstidham@pbclawfirm.com - and - Michael L. Baum, Esq., R. Brent Wisner, Esq., Pedram Esfandiary, Esq., BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C. 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (310) 207-3233 Fax: (310) 820-7444 E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com VECTOR CAPITAL: Former Execs Lose Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Chancery of Delaware denied the individual defendants' motion to dismiss and granted Vector defendants' motion to dismiss the case titled IN RE SABA SOFTWARE, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION, Consolidated C.A. No. 10697-VCS (Del. Ch.). Saba Software, Inc. was a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices in Redwood City, California. Saba provided cloud-based human resources solutions, such as products and services for employee training, performance evaluations, employee planning, collaboration tools, succession planning and recruiting. Saba's stock traded on the NASDAQ exchange until it was delisted on June 17, 2013. Thereafter, it was traded over-the-counter until it was deregistered by the SEC on February 19, 2015. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Saba, through two of its former executives, engaged in a fraudulent scheme from 2008 through 2012 to overstate its pre-tax earnings by $70 million. Thereafter, Saba repeatedly promised regulators, its stockholders and the market that it would get its financial house in order. When Saba's board of directors ultimately sought stockholder approval of the merger, after a months-long sales process, the choice presented to stockholders was either to accept the $9 per share merger consideration, well below its average trading price over the past two years, or continue to hold their now-deregistered, illiquid stock. Not surprisingly, the majority of Saba's stockholders voted to approve the Merger. The individual defendants are, Nora Denzel, Shawn Farshchi, Michael Fawkes, William M. Klein, William N. MacGowan, William V. Russell and Dow R. Wilson all served on the Board during the timeframes that give rise to plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claims. Farshchi also served as Saba's President and CEO, beginning in August 2013, after previously serving as Saba's Interim CEO from March 2013 to August 2013 and Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer from June 2011 to August 2013. Fawkes was the Chairman of the Board's Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and a member of the Strategic Committee. Klein also served on the Board's Strategic Committee and the Ad Hoc Transaction Committee. MacGowan served as Chairman of the Board's Compensation Committee. Russell was the non-executive Chairman of the Board, beginning in March 2013, and served on the Ad Hoc and Strategic Committees. Wilson was a member of the Ad Hoc Committee. Defendant, Vector Capital Management, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, is a private equity firm that manages over $2 billion in equity capital and focuses on value-oriented investments in technology companies. Prior to the Merger, Vector Capital Management, L.P. was one of Saba's lenders. Defendant, Vector Talent II LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company and affiliate of Vector Capital Management, L.P. Defendant, Vector Talent Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is wholly-owned by Vector Talent II LLC and an affiliate of Vector Capital Management, L.P. The merger caused Saba to merge with Vector Talent Merger Sub, Inc. with Saba surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vector Talent II LLC. Plaintiff, Gary Poltash, was a stockholder of Saba who beneficially owned over 80,000 shares of Saba stock prior to the merger. He brought two claims, count I alleges breach of fiduciary duty against the members of Saba's Board of Directors and count II alleges aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the Vector-affiliated defendants. He was appointed lead plaintiff on or about April 8, 2015. Both sets of defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The Court of Chancery of Delaware concluded that the Board may not invoke the business judgment rule under the so-called Corwin doctrine because the complaint pleads facts that allow a reasonable inference that the stockholder vote approving the transaction was neither fully informed nor uncoerced. The Court also concluded that plaintiff has pled a non-exculpated claim of bad faith and breach of the duty of loyalty by stating facts that support pleadings-stage inferences that the Board knowingly failed to disclose material information to stockholders and was motivated to approve the merger so that its members could cash-in on equity options and restricted stock units that would otherwise have been illiquid as a consequence of the deregistration of the Company's stock. Plaintiff has failed, however, to state a claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the Vector defendants because he has failed to allege sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that Vector knowingly participated in the breach of fiduciary duty. The Court denied individual defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the Vector defendants' motion to dismiss. A copy of the Court of Chancery of Delaware's memorandum opinion dated March 31, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/Z1ZQ3s from Leagle.com. Peter B. Andrews -- pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- Craig J. Springer -- cspringer@andrewsspringer.com -- at Andrews & Springer LLC; Seth D. Rigrodsky -- sdr@rl-legal.com -- Brian D. Long -- bdl@rl-legal.com -- Gina M. Serra -- gms@rl-legal.com -- Jeremy J. Riley -- jjr@rl-legal.com -- at of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.; Brian J. Robbins -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- Stephen J. Oddo -- soddo@robbinsarroyo.com -- Nichole T. Browning -- nbrowning@robbinsarroyo.com -- at Robbins Arroyo LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Gregory V. Varallo -- varallo@rlf.com -- Robert Burns -- burns@rlf.com -- Sarah A. Galetta -- galetta@rlf.com -- at Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.; Erik J. Olson -- ejolson@mofo.com -- Robert W. May -- rmay@mofo.com -- at Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Shawn Farshchi, William V. Russell, Dow R. Wilson, William M. Klein, William N. MacGowan, Michael Fawkes, and Nora Denzel Brian C. Ralston -- bralston@potteranderson.com -- Jordan A. Braunsberg -- jbraunsberg@potteranderson.com -- Christopher G. Browne -- cbrowne@potteranderson.com -- at Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP; Alan S. Goudiss -- agoudiss@shearman.com -- Alethea Sargent -- alethea.sargent@shearman.com -- Tiana Peterson -- at Shearman & Sterling LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Vector Capital Management, L.P., Vector Talent II LLC, and Vector Talent Merger Sub, Inc. VERIZON: Faces Class Action Over Cellphone Fraudulent Charges ------------------------------------------------------------- Julia Marsh, writing for New York Post, reports that Verizon knowingly bills its customers for fraudulent charges until they complain, according to a new class-action lawsuit. Brooklyn lawyer and plaintiff Lowell Sidney told The Post that he uncovered the money-grubbing tactic after noticing that his usual $150 monthly Verizon bills had skyrocketed to as much as $230. Since he'd enabled Autopay, he didn't catch the abnormally high charges for about five months. When he finally called Verizon, he was directed to its Fraud Services Department, according to his Brooklyn federal suit. "Fraud Services said that on Oct. 22, 2016, an unknown person entered a Best Buy store in Wesley Chapel, Florida, claimed to be [Sidney], and ordered a cellphone and phone service from Verizon," the suit said. "When the store requested basic identifying information, the imposter fled the store." But "in spite of having no proof of the identity of the imposter, the payments for this new cellphone and related services, which were ordered by the imposter, were attached to [Sidney's] bill in New York," according to court papers. Sidney's lawyer, Athas Ioannou, told The Post it was more than clear to Verizon at the time that the other guy was a crook. Yet "they left whatever he requested on the bill, which is absolutely absurd," Mr. Ioannou said. "It's clearly an attempt to retain money that they know is not theirs," the lawyer added. Mr. Sidney's suit says that "when [he] inquired about Verizon's failure to notify him of this deception, Fraud Services stated that it was not Verizon's corporate policy to notify their customers about potential or detected fraud.'' Mr. Sidney told The Post that during his Feb. 18 conversation with Verizon, "The woman I spoke to was very candid that, 'That's our policy.'" He eventually was reimbursed for the fraudulent charges. But although he has been a Verizon customer for 17 years, he said he plans on changing carriers when his contract expires. "I am not sure if the competition provides comparable service, but to my knowledge, they don't actively engage in defrauding their own customers," Mr. Sidney said. He is suing for at least $75,000 in damages on behalf of himself and other Verizon customers who may have had similar experiences. His lawyer said many Verizon customers are likely getting caught in the alleged fraud dragnet because so many people use Autopay and don't closely scrutinize monthly bills. A spokesman for Verizon said he could not comment on pending litigation. WORTHY PARKING: "Potenzo" Sues Over Car Damage in Valet Parking --------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Potenzo, Individually and on Behalf of all Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Worthy Parking LLC, Defendant, Case No. 153173/2017 (N.Y. Sup., April 4, 2017) seeks compensatory and punitive damages for fraud; treble damages, costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment, common law fraud, breach of contract and violation of the New York General Business Law and New York General Obligations Law. Defendant is a parking garage facility located at 545 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10017. It is in the business of housing, storing and parking vehicles for customers for which it charges a fee. The garage is not self-serve. The customer must leave the key to the vehicle with the garage attendant and the attendant parks the car for the customer. On November 21, 2016, Potenzo, brought his vehicle to be parked in defendant's parking garage. Upon his return, Potenzo observed that his vehicle sustained noticeable damage, prompting him to demand for repairs. Defendants denied his claim. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Victoria Weinman, Esq. HARRY I. KATZ, P.C. 61-25 Utopia Parkway Fresh Meadows, NY 11365 Tel: (718) 463-3700 Fax: (718) 886-3410 * Australian Gov't Cuts Toxic Firefighting Safe Exposure Levels --------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Davidson, writing for The Guardian, reports that The federal government has dramatically lowered the safe exposure levels of toxic firefighting chemicals, following months of controversy over contaminations detected near airports and military bases. The new tolerable daily intake levels (TDIs) of the polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) chemicals 00 used in firefighting foam for decades until the early 2000s but now known to be toxic -- are now in line with US standards, but authorities have warned the long-term effects of exposure remain unknown. PFAS contamination has been detected up to 300 times the safe levels near multiple Australian airports and a dozen Royal Australian Air Force bases including Townsville and Oakey in Queensland, Williamtown in New South Wales, Darwin and Katherine in the Northern Territory, and Perth. The April 3 announcement altered the maximum TDI of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) from 150 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day to 20 nanograms. The maximum TDI of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was revised to 160 nanograms. The guideline for maximum TDI of PFOS in drinking water has been reduced by 7.5 times from 0.5 micrograms to 0.07 micrograms per litre, and from 5 micrograms to 0.56 for PFOA. The new tolerable levels, recommended by Food Standards Australia New Zealand, changed interim guidelines which had been in place since June. At the time there was concern the levels had been set in line with Europe rather than the 78 times lower limits set by the US just one month prior. The federal Department of Health said the previous levels were not wrong, and that both sets of TDIs were protective of public health. The old TDIs were always intended to be replaced and were appropriate as an interim measure, it said. Authorities stressed the guidelines were precautionary measures while research continued, because there was no consistent evidence about the long-term effects of low-level accumulation in humans. Most investigation into the effects of PFAS, particularly overseas, relates to exposure at high levels in places where the chemicals are produced. Food Standards Australia New Zealand was contracted by the federal government as a consultant, and was also tasked to consider what regulatory options were available for food levels but was unable to justify any based on the lack of conclusive evidence and information. "So it's not a standard, and food can still be sold in the marketplace," said the Northern Territory director of environmental health, Xavier Schobben. Authorities and government have acknowledged that uncertainty around the contamination as well as the lack of science on the long-term effects was causing stress in affected communities. More than 450 Oakey residents have reportedly launched a class action against the Department of Defence over the contamination, and another class action on behalf of Williamtown residents is before the federal court. The Department of Health has funded programs including mental health, counselling services and voluntary blood testing in Williamtown and Oakey, where contamination has been the worst. Natasha Fyles, the Northern Territory health minister, said her government was lobbying defence to provide similar support and services to Katherine residents, the worst-affected area in the NT. Working with defence on the contamination issue had been an "ongoing issue", she said, but was "cooperative". "We remind defence that they need to certainly be at the table on this issue in terms of providing information and resources to our community. I'm confident defence acknowledge their role to play," she said. In the Northern Territory the worst contamination has been in Katherine between the RAAF base and the edge of town, where more than 40 properties which rely solely on bore water have been supplied with bottled drinking water by defence. Authorities said outside of those areas, the water in Katherine -- which relies on river water or a mix of river and bore water -- was safe to drink. The concern for the main town was isolated to a short period of time following the end of the dry season. At that time the new rains flush the river and can bring uncontrollable levels of bacteria, forcing the town on to 100% bore water. No details of contingency plans in the event of Katherine residents being told not to drink the water were provided, but decisions would be made on the basis of further testing and consultation, members of the joint agency taskforce said on April 3. The federal Labor opposition criticised the government for inadequate national coordination on responding to the crisis. An Environment Protection Authority summit is under way in Melbourne to develop a national PFAS management plan. The Department of Defence has been contacted for comment. * "Right to Know" Bill May Impact Illinois Small Businesses ----------------------------------------------------------- Todd Maisch, the president and CEO of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, in an article for The State Journal-Register, reports that cloaked under the description of "privacy" legislation, a package of bills under consideration in Springfield takes solid aim at two of the state's key economic performers -- small businesses and the burgeoning tech industry in Illinois. These bills include complex compliance regulations, which would apply to businesses of all sizes, but would place an enormous burden on small businesses statewide. The "Right to Know" bill (House Bill 2774) would require any business with a website -- even a local flower shop or pizza parlor -- to draft privacy policies longer and more confusing than anything required by existing law and to create new IT systems -- at best, a complex and expensive undertaking; at worst, impossible to implement -- to respond to consumer requests under threat of liability. What's more, any error would void the business's entire contract with consumers, subjecting the business to an onslaught of liability completely unrelated to the likely unintentional violation. Startups operating with only three or four people would have the added stress of regulations that would demand attention they may not be able to give. If people are honest about it, requiring every small business in the state to dramatically change its online terms of use and IT systems under a threat of lawsuits is less in the interest of consumers, and more in the interest of plaintiffs' lawyers. There's even an amendment to the "Right to Know" bill intended solely to preserve lawsuits, leading to a situation where Illinois small businesses could potentially face two different class action lawsuits over the same issue. This is as thinly veiled as pro-trial lawyer legislation comes. After peeling back the layers, it's clear that these bills would give consumers a false sense of security regarding their privacy. Consistent with federal and state laws in place, privacy policies already explain how personal information is collected and shared. Today's companies know they must be transparent about their practices and offer consumers control, or they will lose their most important asset -- consumer trust. So they treat privacy and data security as a competitive advantage and an area for investment and innovation. But under the "Right to Know" bill, businesses would be required to implement a "one-size fits all" IT infrastructure just to maintain consumer request channels that experience has shown are neither useful to nor frequently used by consumers. It's wasteful, unworkable and unnecessary. When private investors look to do business in Illinois, they will see these heavy regulations as a red flag and look to invest in another state. Illinois deserves to be the beacon of innovation and a hub for businesses when compared to other states, not merely the low hanging fruit. Illinois would be foolish to undercut the growing economic potential of the state's tech and innovation economy with a regulatory scheme far too focused on business liability. In a 2017 KPMG report, global technology experts listed Chicago as one of the top six cities worldwide most likely to become a leading innovation hub over the next four years. And Urbana- Champaign, where hundreds of engineers and computer scientists graduate each year, was cited as one of the most promising tech hubs to watch. The tech industry is not broken. It doesn't need to be fixed. So why would Illinois disqualify itself from more tech investment with radical regulations on this growing tech sector? It makes no sense. ********* 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 * * *