/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170426.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 26, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 83 Headlines A&M ROSENTHAL: "Garay" Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages AABACO SMALL BUSINESS: "Meyer" Sues Over Breach of Contract ALLIED INTERSTATE: "Munz" Sues Over Annoying Collections Calls ALTISOURCE ASSET: Denver Employee to File Amended Complaint ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Dismiss "Martin" Suit Denied AMERICAN FAMILY: Agents are Employees, Jury Says AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: "Baldwin" Seeks Class Action Certification AMERICAN ROAD: Faces "Frazee" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation AMERICAN SENIOR: "Navarro" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Reached in Class Suit AMYRIS INC: Rosen Files Securities Class Action ANZ SECURITIES: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in CalPERS Suit ARC OF FAYETTE: "Lynn" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay AS AMERICA: "Papp" Sues Over Defective Toilet Flush Valves ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "Minzer" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal AUSTRALIA: 40 Manus Island Detainees to Testify in Trial AUTO CLUB: Court Affirms Ruling Narrowing Claims in "Rothstein" AVID TECHNOLOGY: Georges Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Defending 3 Class Suits in California BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Jackson" Suit BAYER HEALTHCARE: Wins Class Action Over Digestive Supplements BED BATH: "Blair" Class Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. BLUE BUFFALO: Appeal on Class Suit Settlement Still Pending BLUE BUFFALO: Still Faces Class Suit in Ontario BOSE CORP: Faces Class Action Over U.S. Wiretap Act Violation BULEE CAFE: "Morales" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay CALIFORNIA: Upton Urges Court to Reject Judge Walsh R&R CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Gordon Seeks Certification of TCPA Class Action CARRABBA'S ITALIAN: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages CERTEGY CHECK: Alexander Moves to Certify 2 Classes, 2 Subclasses CHARIOTS OF HIRE: Certification of Class Sought in "Phipps" Suit CHOCK DEE CORP: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay CMC DRYWALL: "Maradiaga" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages COMCAST CORP: Judge Says Class Action Unlikely to Net Big Payout CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Defending Suit over FairPoint Merger CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Bakov Seeks Certification of TCPA Class Suit CRUMP LIFE: Dolemba's Bid to Certify Denied But May Be Renewed CVS HEALTH: Corcoran's Bid to Certify Denied; Conference on May 1 DEALDASH INC: Sells Phony Name-Brand Products, Pstikyan Suit Says DELAWARE: 3rd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Inmates' Suit DRIVE SAFE: "Payton" Sues Over Illegal Text Blast Ads DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Suit Stresses Importance of Sweepstakes Atty E TRANSPORT CARRIERS: "Reynolds" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ECLINICALWORKS LLC: Licari Family Seeks Certification of Class EPATIENTS.COM INC: "Gress" Suit Voluntarily Tossed w/o Prejudice FAT DADDY: Judge Certifies Unpaid Overtime Class Action Suit FIELD ASSET: Bid to Decertify Class in "Bowerman" Suit Tossed FIRST TENNESSEE: Judge OKs $16.8-Mil. Class Settlement FITBIT INC: July 10 Trial in Sleep Tracking Suit FITBIT INC: Class Suit Over Heart Rate Devices Still Pending FITBIT INC: IPO Securities Litigation Pending FITBIT INC: 2 Class Suits Consolidated in San Francisco Court FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Hill" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation FORTRESS INVESTMENT: Court Bars Mother from Filing FDCPA Suit FOX LAKE, IL: Faces Class Suit over Cop's Staged Suicide FRONTIER SERVICES: "Moctezuma" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay GERBER PRODUCTS: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Baby Food Suit GLOBAL CREDIT: Certification of "Halberstam" as Class Suit Sought GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Judge Revives "Chen-Oster" Gender Bias Suit GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Class Action Settlement Awaits Final Approval GULFSTREAM PARK: "Gonzalez" Files Lawsuit Over 'Tip-Credit' GURSTEL CHARGO: Wins Summary Judgment in Debt-Collection Suit HIGHER ONE: Faces Class Action Over Fees on Student Debit Cards HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES: Gorbatchev Sues Over Nexus 6P Bootloop HUNGARY: Star Seeks Certification of Holocaust Victims Class HUNTINGTON, IN: Hale Moves to Certify Indigent Prisoners Class ILG INC: Suit over Fractional Offering Plan Pending INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Court Dismisses Stockholder Class Action INTELEOS INC: Faces Suit over Sonography Exam Scores INTREXON CORPORATION: Wins Dismissal of Shareholder Suit IXIA: Court Approves Settlement Fund Distribution JS SEPTIC SERVICES: "Ruiz" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway KEENWAWA INC: American Council of the Blind Asserts ADA Breach KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: 4 Class Suits Pending LA QUINTA: Bid to Dismiss Amended "Beisel" Complaint Challenged LINCOLN DELI: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay LOUISIANA, USA: Wheat Moves to Certify Two Classes of Arrestees LUMENIS INC: Gillespie, et al. Sue Under FLSA, State Labor Laws M&C GLOBAL: Faces "Gomes" Suit in Tex. Alleging FLSA Violation MDL 2420: Class Certification Bid Denied METLIFE INC: Westland Police Class Suit Underway METLIFE INC: Settlement of Birmingham Suit Awaits Final Approval METLIFE INC: "Owens" Class Suit Underway METLIFE INC: Dismissal of "Robainas" Suit Affirmed METLIFE INC: Dismissal of "Intoccia" Suit Affirmed METLIFE INC: MLIC Paid Settlement Funds in "Fauley" Suit METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Class Suit Remains Pending in California METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Martin" Suit Underway METLIFE INC: "Lau" Class Action Remains Pending in New York METLIFE INC: "Newman" Class Suit Underway in Illinois MOVAGE INC: "Williams" Seeks Pay for OT, Unaccounted Travel Time NASDAQ INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Rabin" Suit Underway NASDAQ INC: Appeal in Providence Suit Underway NASDAQ INC: "Lanier" Plaintiff Did Not File SC Petition NAT'L FOOTBALL: Settlement Could be New Model for Handling Claims NEUSTAR INC: "Parshall" Suit Pending in Delaware NIAGRA BOTTLING: "Manu" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay NIBCO INC: Cole Moves for Class Cert.; Hearing Set for June 19 ONTARIO: Koskie Minsky Commences Solitary Confinement Class Suit OREGON: Disability Rights Group Sue over In-Home Services Cuts ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: "Douvris" Class Suit Pending PARAMOUNT GOLD: Former Stockholders' Litigation Dismissed PATTERN ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Dismisses Class Suit PRA GROUP: TCPA Case Settlement Subject to Final Approval PREMIUM PACKING: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in "Diaz" Suit PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: November 2018 Trial in "Hsu" Action R1 RCM: Settlement Reached in "Anger" Class Action REALTY CONSULTING: "Williams" Hits Illegal Provision in Lease REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Class Suit Remains Pending REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Class Suit Remains Pending REHABCARE GROUP: Settlement in TCPA Suit Has Prelim. Approval RENEWABLE ENERGY: "Stacy" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls REPUBLIC SCHOOLS: Tenn. Court Certifies Class in "Skeete" Suit RESOLUTE FOREST: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending ROCK FISH: Faces Proposed Wage-and-Overtime Class Action SEARS HOME: Wins Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Coleman" Suit SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Securities Action Pending in California SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in "Hall" Class Action Pending SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Discovery Conference Held in "Anderson" SOCIETE DE TRANSPORT: RAPLIQ Asks Court to Launch Class Action SOLARCITY CORP: Class Certification Motion Underway in "Morris" SOLARCITY CORP: Files Answer to "Gibbs" Suit SUNDANCE INC: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Flanagan" Suit TESLA INC: Faces Suit Over Software Updates on Cars' Autopilots TESLA INC: Dismissal of Securities Action Affirmed TESLA INC: Appeal in SolarCity Stockholder Suit Pending TESLA INC: Stockholder Suit Pending in California TESLA INC: Plaintiffs to File Amended Complaint in Delaware TEXAS FARMERS: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Pro Se Suit TOYS 'R' US-DELAWARE: Salvan Seeks to Certify 2 Employee Classes TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Strike Class Claims in TCPA Suit TRUECAR INC: "Rose" Class Suit Underway UNITED AIRLINES: Court Dismisses California Class Action UNITED COLLECTION: Directed to Produce Class Data UNITED CONSUMER: Calif. Court Denies Dismissal of "DeClue" UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Hill's De Novo Subclass Certified USF REDDAWAY: Motion to Certify in "Moss" Suit Under Submission VALERO MKTG: Water Contamination Suit Remanded to State Court VECTRUS INC: Intends to File Supreme Court Petition WALT DISNEY PARKS: Perrero Moves to Certify Discrimination Class WATTS REGULATOR: Settlement in "Klug" Granted Final Approval WATTS REGULATOR: Settlement in "Sharp" Granted Final Approval WDE GROUP: "Smith" Action Claims Overtime Pay WELLS FARGO: Court OKs $1.4MM Fees to Class Counsel WESTERN RANGE: Nevada Court Dismisses Peruvian Workers' Suit WESTERN REFINING: NTI Merger Litigation in Early Stages WESTERN REFINING: Seeks Dismissal of Tesoro Merger Litigation WILLIS TOWERS: Still Awaits Court Decision on Settlement WILLIS TOWERS: Court to Consider Motions to Decertify Class WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Class Certification Motion Underway XENCOR INC: Settlement in "DePinto" Suit Has Final OK YELP INC: 9th Circuit Appeal Remains Pending YELP INC: $550,000 Settlement Amount Has Been Paid YELP INC: $0.2 Million Settlement Has Final Approval YZ COMMERCE: "Sloatman" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ZIMMER BIOMET: Glancy Prongay Appointed as Lead Counsel * Breaching Glass Ceiling Through Individual & Class Action Cases ********* A&M ROSENTHAL: "Garay" Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages -------------------------------------------------- Edward Garay, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly- situated, Plaintiff, v. A&M Rosenthal Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 153436/2017 (N.Y. Sup., April 12, 2017) seeks maximum liquidated damages and interest for unpaid overtime wages, costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Labor Law; an injunction prohibiting Defendant from continuing to violate the weekly payment requirement for manual workers; maximum compensation for not receiving notices and statements; maximum liquidated damages; and interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to the New York Labor Law. Defendant was engaged in the business of manufacturing fabric where Garay was employed from 1996 to March 20, 2017. Plaintiff was employed as a manual worker, performing a variety of functions such as lifting, rolling, spreading and handling fabric throughout his workday. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Tel: (718) 740-1000 Fax: (718) 740-2000 Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com AABACO SMALL BUSINESS: "Meyer" Sues Over Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Meyer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AABACO Small Business, LLC; and Yahoo! Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02102, (N.D. Cal., April 14, 2017), seeks damages resulting from unlawful, deceptive, unfair and fraudulent business and trade practices; restitution or other equitable relief, including disgorgement of all profits and unjust enrichment; reasonable attorneys' fees; and pre and post-judgment interest; and such other and further relief for violations of the Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code, the California False Advertising Law, and for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment. Defendants offer Web Hosting for a monthly or annual fee, targeting small business owners. Specifically, through this service, Defendants provide website building tools and storage space, business emails attached to the website, and the ability to market or advertise through the website. Plaintiff availed of Defendants' Web Hosting for his photography related website. Defendants allegedly cut off the web hosting benefits to their paying customers and did not honor the cancellation rights included in the Terms of Service. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Quentin A. Roberts, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 291-2420 Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 Email: rrivas@zlk.com qroberts@zlk.com ALLIED INTERSTATE: "Munz" Sues Over Annoying Collections Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Munz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allied Interstate LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-at-00309, (E.D. Cal., April 13, 2017), seeks actual and statutory damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief for negligent violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Allied Interstate is debt collection company tasked to collect a debt from the Plaintiff by use of the mails and telephone. Defendant repeatedly called Plaintiff using an automatic telephone dialing system despite Plaintiff's express revocation of consent to be called. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com ALTISOURCE ASSET: Denver Employee to File Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Harvey Bartle III, sitting by designation, granted on April 6, 2017, the motion of defendants Altisource Asset Management Corporation, William C. Erbey, Kenneth D. Najour, Ashish Pandey, and Robin N. Lowe to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the case captioned, City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp., et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-04 (D.V.I.), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4, et seq. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://is.gd/3ZBmfG On April 20, the Denver Employee Retirement Plan filed a Notice of Intention to Move for Leave to Amend the Complaint. Altisource Asset Management Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that on January 16, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands by a purported shareholder of AAMC under the caption City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp., et al., 15-cv-00004. The action names as defendants AAMC, Mr. Erbey and certain officers of AAMC and alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose material information to AAMC shareholders concerning alleged conflicts of interest held by Mr. Erbey with respect to AAMC's relationship and transactions with RESI, ASPS, Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., Southwest Business Corporation, NewSource Reinsurance Company and Ocwen Financial Corporation, including allegations that the defendants failed to disclose (i) the nature of relationships between Mr. Erbey, AAMC and those entities; and (ii) that the transactions were the result of an allegedly unfair process from which Mr. Erbey failed to recuse himself. The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses. AAMC and Mr. Erbey are the only defendants who have been served with the complaint. On May 12, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of Denver Employees Retirement Plan to be lead plaintiff. On May 15, 2015, the court entered a scheduling order requiring plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before June 19, 2015, and setting a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 19, 2015. On July 20, 2015, AAMC and Mr. Erbey filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on September 3, 2015. On December 16, 2016, the case was reassigned to a new Judge, U.S. District Court Judge Harvey Bartle, III, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. "We believe the amended complaint is without merit. At this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any," the Company said. Altisource Asset Management Corporation was incorporated in the United States Virgin Islands on March 15, 2012, and it commenced operations in December 2012. Its primary business is to provide asset management and certain corporate governance services to institutional investors. In October 2013, it applied for and were granted registration by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") as a registered investment adviser under section 203(c) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Dismiss "Martin" Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Anne E. Thompson, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, on March 16, 2017, denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the case captioned, Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00024 (D. V.I.). Defendants Altisource Residential, William C. Erbey, Robin N Lowe, Kenneth D. Najour, Ashish Pandey, Rachel M. Ridley on April 21 filed their answer the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. According to Judge Thompson, Plaintiff has pleaded sufficiently to survive the motion to dismiss that his loss was caused by reliance on Defendants' intentional, material misrepresentations. Additionally, Residential paid Altisource Asset Management Corporation six times the amount paid by similarly situated companies for external management services. Thus, Plaintiff has alleged sufficiently that RESI's shareholders suffered damages as a result of Defendants' behavior. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://is.gd/EXErDb Altisource Residential Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that on March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands by a purported shareholder of the Company under the caption Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00024. The action names as defendants the Company, Mr. Erbey and certain officers and a former officer of the Company and alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other things, making materially false statements and/or failing to disclose material information to the Company's shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and transactions with AAMC, Ocwen and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. These alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations that the defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance on Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen, including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans, that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violating state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen's lack of proper internal controls. The complaint also contains allegations that certain of the Company's disclosure documents were false and misleading because they failed to disclose fully the entire details of a certain asset management agreement between the Company and AAMC that allegedly benefited AAMC to the detriment of the Company's shareholders. The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses. In May 2015, two of our purported shareholders filed competing motions with the court to be appointed lead plaintiff and for selection of lead counsel in the action. Subsequently, opposition and reply briefs were filed by the purported shareholders with respect to these motions. On October 7, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be lead plaintiff and denying the other motion to be lead plaintiff. On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the action. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on May 20, 2016, and the defendants filed a reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016. On November 14, 2016, the Martin case was reassigned to Judge Anne E. Thompson of the United States District Court of New Jersey. In a hearing on December 19, 2016, the parties made oral arguments on the motion to dismiss, and the court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss. Altisource Residential Corporation is a Maryland real estate investment trust ("REIT") focused on acquiring and managing quality, affordable single-family rental ("SFR") properties for working class families throughout the United States. It commenced operations in December 2012. It conducts substantially all of its activities through its wholly owned subsidiary, Altisource Residential, L.P., and its subsidiaries. It operates in a single segment focused on the acquisition and ownership of residential rental properties. AMERICAN FAMILY: Agents are Employees, Jury Says ------------------------------------------------ Eric Heisig at Cleveland.com reports a jury in Cleveland decided that thousands of American Family Insurance agents across the country should be classified as employees, not independent contractors. The decision, issued on April 18, gives a class of current and former agents of American Family Insurance the next step they need as they seek to obtain as they seek federally-protected retirement benefits from the insurance giant. The company could be required to pay for more than USD1 billion in retirement benefits if the judge rules in favor of the agents, an attorney representing the class said. The jury issued its decision against the Madison, Wisconsin-based insurance company following a two-week trial. It comes after more than four years of litigation and a ruling from U.S. District Judge Donald Nugent that certified the case as a class-action lawsuit. The case was filed in Cleveland because two of the plaintiffs who brought the original lawsuit are based in Ohio. "The jury apparently agreed that AmFam cannot have it both ways," Erin Dickinson, a Milwaukee-area attorney who worked on the case, said in the news release. "A company cannot just call its agents 'independent contractors' to avoid following the federal law protecting retirement benefits and then insist on controlling how those agents do their work." Nugent will next decide whether he agrees with the jury's decision and issue a ruling. If he does, the case will proceed to another phase where the judge will decide the best course to remedy any potential wrongdoing American Family Insurance might have committed. A news release says the case could affect 6,978 current and former agents nationwide. American Family Insurance spokesman Ken Muth said in an emailed statement on April 20 that "we value our agents and the important roles they play in the lives of our customers and success of our company. "We strongly disagree with the advisory verdict and believe it is contrary to the facts that American Family treats our agents as the independent contractors that they are," Muth's statement says. "The classification of insurance agents as independent contractors is common in our industry and has been affirmed by the courts in the past. Not only does our agents' independent-contractor designation comply with the law, it benefits our agents by providing them great independence to make their businesses successful." The jury's decision in this case mirrors litigation underway across the country that seeks benefits and payment standards for people who work at companies that classify workers as independent contractors. Dickinson said agents are required to bear overhead costs for selling insurance in a certain area, such as renting a storefront. At the end of the day, the agents have no independent ownership in the business, Dickinson said. She said the company did offer retirement benefits, but they were not covered by federal law. AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: "Baldwin" Seeks Class Action Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- Caleb Baldwin moves the Court for an order certifying the case styled CALEB BALDWIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC., a Missouri corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00848 (N.D. Ill.), as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff brings the class action on behalf of a class defined as: All individuals in the United States to whose wireless telephones Defendant sent a non-emergency, text message through the use of an automatic dialing system, at any time within the four years prior to the filing of this action (the "Class"). Excluded from the Class are Defendant and its subsidiaries and affiliates; all persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the Class; governmental entities; and the judge to whom this case is assigned and any immediate family members thereof. The Plaintiff also moves for an order reserving ruling on the Motion, and allowing for and scheduling discovery to take place on class-wide issues. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ssVDB0Mq The Plaintiff is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. Ismael T. Salam, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com kshamberg@litedepalma.com isalam@litedepalma.com AMERICAN ROAD: Faces "Frazee" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Frazee, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. American Road Management, Inc., a Florida for Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00671-JA-TBS (M.D. Fla., April 13, 2017), alleges that Defendant failed to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act because Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, performed services for Defendant for which no provisions were made by Defendant to properly pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated, for all overtime hours worked. American Road Management Inc. provides Harley-Davidson motorcycle sales, rentals, service/parts, and Harley-Davidson apparel. Plaintiff was responsible for making motorcycle sales at the Defendant's dealership.[BN] Matthew R. Gunter, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802 4979 Phone: 407 420 1414 Fax: 407 867 0946 E-mail: mgunter@forthepeople.com AMERICAN SENIOR: "Navarro" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Navarro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Senior Funding Corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02828 (C.D. Cal., April 13, 2017), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions as well as invasion of privacy. American Senior Funding is a reverse mortgage provider and contacted Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in an attempt to promote its services. Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system for such. [BN] 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 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Reached in Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Lead plaintiff and defendants have reached an agreement in principal to fully and finally settle all claims asserted in the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. Since October 1, 2015, three purported securities class action lawsuits have been commenced in the United States District Court for New Jersey, naming as defendants the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and in one of the actions, its Chief Medical Officer. The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company related to the regulatory approval path for migalastat. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages for purchasers of the Company's Common Stock during different periods, all of which fall between March 19, 2015 and October 1, 2015. It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations received from stockholders, with respect to similar matters and also naming the Company and/or its officers and directors as defendants. On May 26, 2016, the Court consolidated these lawsuits into a single action and appointed a lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 11, 2016. On August 25, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss in response to the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. This motion to dismiss was fully briefed on October 28, 2016. Lead plaintiff and defendants have reached an agreement in principal to fully and finally settle all claims asserted in the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The settlement is immaterial to the Company's consolidated financial statements and is subject to, among other things, documentation and court approval. The settlement amount is expected to be fully covered under insurance. Amicus is a global patient-focused biotechnology company engaged in the discovery, development and commercialization of a diverse set of novel treatments for patients living with devastating rare and orphan diseases. Its lead product, migalastat HCl is a small molecule that can be used as a monotherapy and in combination with enzyme replacement therapy ("ERT") for Fabry disease. AMYRIS INC: Rosen Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Amyris, Inc. securities (AMRS) from March 2, 2017 through April 17, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Amyris investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Amyris class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1104.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) in the first quarter of 2017, Amyris made a decision to take an equity stake in one of Blue California's affiliates that focused on the sweetener market in lieu of cash payment under the license agreement; (2) consequently, due to Amyris' decision, Amyris would be unable to recognize USD10 million in fourth quarter and fiscal year 2016 revenue from the license agreement with Blue California; and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 19, 2017. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1104.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767- 3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. ANZ SECURITIES: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in CalPERS Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Britain Eakin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the Supreme Court dove into a technical case on April 17, to examine what should determine how long investors that opt out of securities class actions can file separate lawsuits. It was the third case newly confirmed Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch heard. Along with his conservative colleagues on the bench, he appeared to oppose extending the tolling precedent afforded to class actions for this type of case. At issue is Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933, which contains a special limitations provision that bars investors from litigating securities disputes separately from a class action over the same issue after three years. Lower courts have held that the three-year time limit is absolute, but the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) argued on April 17, afternoon that the three-year period is subject to equitable tolling. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Section 13 is a statute of repose, which means the three-year limitation is a strict deadline. A statute that is subject to equitable tolling, however, allows for an extension of time if the injured party did not learn about the injury until after the statute of limitations had already passed. Typically in class actions, the class complaint counts as an individual claim for the purposes of calculating the statute of limitations. Known as "American Pipe tolling," the Supreme Court ruled in 1974 in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah that a class complaint "tolled," or paused, the statute of limitations, which enables later spin-off claims to be considered timely. CalPERS, the nation's largest pension fund at $316 billion, argued that rule should also apply to their investor fraud case against ANZ Securities Inc., an underwriter for Lehman Brothers that went bankrupt in 2008 in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis. Investors filed a class action that year, alleging that Lehman Brothers and ANZ had made false statements and omitted important information about some of Lehman's security debt offerings. But the lawsuit went dormant until 2011, prompting CalPERS to file its own class action. The issue with securities class actions that CalPERS ran up against, however, stems from a two-tiered system that governs time limitations on securities cases, which attorneys for CalPERS claimed during oral arguments are vague. Section 13 of the Securities Act requires aggrieved investors to bring a claim within one year of discovering omissions or untrue statements by offerors, which was intended to protect investors. But it also bars actions more than three years after securities are offered to the public, which protects offerors from never- ending litigation. According to securities litigator Mark Foster -- mfoster@mofo.com -- with Morrison and Foerster, financial institutions that underwrite securities offerings rely on that certainty. "Knowing when the time has run on potential claims allows them to more accurately estimate their risk exposure and any potential contingent liabilities," he said in an email. Thomas Goldstein -- tgoldstein@goldsteinrussell.com -- with Goldstein & Russell argued on behalf of CalPERS that the strict deadline for filing securities actions separate from the class only serves to add additional litigation on the front end for district courts to deal with. He also suggested that the issue turns on whether the new action constitutes "a separate and distinct action within the meaning of Section 13." "This is not a new action in any sense of the word," Goldstein said. All CalPERS did was opt out of the first class action; it did not bring any new allegations, he added. Gorsuch prodded Goldstein about the plain language of Section 13, which says that "in no event shall any action be brought to enforce a liability" more than three years after securities are offered to the public. "Why shouldn't we follow the plain language and the traditional understanding of the term 'action'?" he said. If Congress had meant claims, as Goldstein had suggested, why did they did they not use that term? Gorsuch pressed. Goldstein suggested that the justices view this not within Section 13 alone, but through a prism of all securities-related legislation as a whole. "What I'm saying is you have to interpret this word 'action' in the context of all of the law," he said. The liberal-leaning side of the bench remained relatively quiet while Goldstein presented his arguments. But they jumped in when Paul Clement, who argued on behalf of ANZ, presented his client's case. Clement faced a barrage of questions from the female justices in particular, who seemed sympathetic to CalPERS. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pressed Clement about his certainty that Section 13 constitutes a statute of repose. "When one uses the language 'forever barred,' and the other uses 'in no event,' how do we know whether it's a statute of repose?" she asked, referencing the stricter language -- "forever barred" -- attached to statutes of repose. Clement pointed to the high court's ruling in Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. John Gilberston et al., which found that the two-tiered structure of Section 13 could only be explained if the second three-year tier was a statute of repose. Speaking of Goldstein, Clement said, "He is seeking to recover millions of dollars from my client, based on an action that they filed in the Northern District of California in 2011, more than three years after these securities were issued to the public." According to Clement, that is the action the court must apply the text of Section 13 to. "And, I'm sorry, 2011 is too late under the plain terms of the statute, and it is a statute of repose," he said. "And the case really is that simple." According to Foster, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to expand securities law beyond court precedent and Congress's previous definitions. "The legislative history shows that Congress intended the passage of three years to serve as an absolute bar to claims brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act," he said in a statement. Section 11 outlines potential liabilities, while Section 13 governs when and how those claims can be addressed. "No court-made tolling rule should extend that," Foster added. The high court will issue a ruling in the cases before the current session ends in June. ARC OF FAYETTE: "Lynn" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------- Jesse Lynn and Belinda Darnell, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. Arc of Fayette County, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00474, (W.D. Pa., April 13, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation owed, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest as well as the litigation costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred and such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. ARC of Fayette County provides services to disabled and elderly persons in Fayette County Pennsylvania. Defendant maintains its headquarters at 80 Old New Salem Road, Uniontown, Fayette County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs worked as Family Support Persons in its Home Supports Program. Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Linkosky, Esq. JOHN LINKOSKY &ASSOCIATES 715 Washington Avenue Carnegie, PA 15106 Tel: (412) 278-1280 Fax: (412) 278-1282 Email: linklaw@comcast.net - and - Joseph E. Fieschko, Jr., Esq. JOSEPH E. FIESCHKO, JR. & ASSOC. 2230 Koppers Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Tel: (412) 281-2204 Fax: (412) 338-9169 AS AMERICA: "Papp" Sues Over Defective Toilet Flush Valves ---------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Papp, Candu Properties LLC and Reginald B. Friesen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AS America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00800 (N.D. Ohio, April 13, 2017), seeks to recover damages, restitution in tort and contract and/or disgorgement of profits unlawfully gained, interest, costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief resulting from breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. Defendant manufactures, markets and sells the Champion 4 brand Toilet. It allegedly has a defect in the seal or washer that sits on the flush valve mechanism. The purpose of the Flush Valve Seal is to prevent water in the holding tank from draining until the user flushes the toilet. In a relatively short period of time, the flush valve seal develops a blister on its surface that creates a leak path, allowing water to leak down the flush valve mechanism, says the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Coyne, Esq. Brendon P. Friesen, Esq. Emily S. O'Connor, Esq. MANSOUR GAVIN LPA 1001 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 1400 Cleveland, OH 44114 Tel: (216) 523-1500 Fax: (216) 523-1705 Email: acoyne@mggmlpa.com bfriesen@mggmlpa.com eoconnor@mggmlpa.com - and - Stuart E. Scott, Esq. Dennis R. Lansdowne, Esq. SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Tel: (216) 696-3232 Fax: (216) 696-3924 Email: dlansdowne@spanglaw.com sscott@spanglaw.com ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "Minzer" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------- Shoshana Minzer, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Astoria Financial Corporation, Monte N. Redman, Ralph F. Palleschi, John R. Chrin, John J. Corrado, Robert Giambrone, Gerard C. Keegan, Brian M. Leeney, Patricia M. Nazemetz, and Sterling Bancorp, Defendants, Case No. 2017-0284, (Del. Ch., April 12, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants and all those acting in concert with them from consummating the merger of Astoria Financial Corporation and Sterling Bancorp; removal of any deal protection devices that are precluding any interested bidders from making a topping bid; rescinding it or awarding damages to Plaintiff in the event that the merger is consummated; fees and expenses in connection with this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses; and such other and further relief for breach of Defendants' fiduciary duties. On March 6, 2017, the Astoria Board announced that the company will merge with and into Sterling with the latter as the surviving corporation in the Merger where each share of common stock of the company will be automatically converted into the right to receive 0.875 shares of Sterling common stock. The proposed transaction is valued at approximately $2.2 billion. [BN] Astoria Bank provides residential mortgage loans funded primarily by retail deposits of the customers of the bank. Sterling is a bank and financial holding company with corporate headquarters located at 400 Rella Boulevard, Montebello, New York 10901. Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 682-3025 - and - Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. Daniel P. Murray, Esq. 901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 778-4000 Email: rernst@oelegal.com dmurray@oelegal.com AUSTRALIA: 40 Manus Island Detainees to Testify in Trial -------------------------------------------------------- The Weekend Australian reports forty Manus Island detainees may be brought to Australia to testify in a class action trial. The Victorian Supreme Court may otherwise consider sitting on the Papua New Guinea island to hear from those witnesses during the six-month trial that begins next month and will be live streamed. Eight people now held in detention centres in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Western Australia will testify in person in Melbourne. The class action led by Iranian-born Majid Karami Kamasaee has 1905 group members, which the plaintiff's lawyers Slater and Gordon says covers the majority of people detained on Manus Island since 2012. Detainees' barrister David Curtain QC on April 21 said the detainees who remain on Manus Island should be brought to Melbourne. Mr. Curtain said the fallback position was that the court will be asked to travel to Manus. "We are keen that if the Commonwealth can arrange for detainees in Australia to be brought to the court, we believe they can arrange for detainees on Manus Island to also be brought to the court," Mr. Curtain said. The court heard arrangements for the 41 witnesses held on Manus Island to give evidence could be complicated by Australia's resettlement deal with the US. Justice Michael McDonald questioned how many of the detainees had been interviewed by representatives of Homeland Security, given media reports that those matters were in train. "Presumably a proportion at least of those 41 will be interviewed by representatives of the United States government with a view to possible relocation to the United States," he said. He said it was a matter for the plaintiff to make an application that the court convene in Papua New Guinea, although a number of factors needed to be considered including facilities, the costs involved and accommodating a large cohort of people. The class action alleges the detainees suffered serious physical and psychological injuries as a result of the conditions in which they were held on Manus Island. A claim for false imprisonment was added to the action last year, following a PNG Supreme Court ruling that the detention of asylum seekers on Manus Island was unlawful and in breach of PNG's constitution. AUTO CLUB: Court Affirms Ruling Narrowing Claims in "Rothstein" --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York overruled defendants' objections to the Report and Recommendation in the case captioned, IRIS ROTHSTEIN, et ano., Plaintiffs, v. AUTO CLUB SOUTH, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-9391 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Auto Club South, American Automobile Association (AAA) and Priceline.com claiming that plaintiffs booked three hotel reservations through AAA.com, which promoted its reservation service as having "member rates with exclusive AAA member savings," that the website represented that no fees would be charged with respect to such bookings, and that plaintiffs later discovered that they had not received "exclusive member savings" on their rooms and had been charged fees with respect to the bookings. The amended complaint seeks damages for alleged breach of contract, violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. Section 349 (GBL 349), and unjust enrichment. The amended complaint grounds the breach of contract claim in the assertions that (1) plaintiffs entered into membership contracts with AAA that gave them access to the AAA.com website and incorporated the AAA Member Benefits Handbook, which promised "exclusive AAA member savings," (2) that the AAA.com website explicitly stated that fees would not be charged with respect to hotel bookings made over the site, and (3) that AAA breached its contract by failing to live up to those promises. Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) the amended complaint. In a report and recommendation dated March 16, 2017, Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis recommended that the motion be granted to the extent of dismissing the GBL 349 claim but denied in all other respects. Defendants object to the recommendation to the extent it recommends denial of the motion with respect to the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. In the Memorandum Opinion dated April 13, 2017 available at https://is.gd/SJ5atg from Leagle.com, Judge Kaplan held that Defendants' arguments are unpersuasive because the amended complaint alleges precisely what defendants' claim was omitted. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint is granted to the extent that Count III is dismissed. It is denied in all other respects. "The Court well understands the eagerness of defendants on the receiving end of putative class actions to file dispositive motions at the earliest possible moment. The lack of merit of this one, however, should have been readily apparent from the outset although the Court does not encourage still further litigation with respect to sanctions," the opinion stated. Stanley Rothstein and Iris Rothstein are represented by: Noah I. Axler, Esq. DONOVAN AXLER, LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 -- and -- Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq. Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 875 Third Avenue, Suite 800 New York City, NY 10022 Tel: (212)419-0156 Auto Club South is represented by George Calvin Hayes, Esq. -- calvin.hayes@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY -- Harvey W. Gurland, Jr., Esq. -- HWGurland@duanemorris.com -- Paul Evans Chronis, Esq. -- PEChronis@duanemorris.com -- and -- Elinor Hart Murarova, Esq. -- EHMurarova@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS, LLP Priceline.com is represented by Paul Evans Chronis, Esq. -- PEChronis@duanemorris.com -- and -- Elinor Hart Murarova, Esq. -- EHMurarova@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS, LLP AVID TECHNOLOGY: Georges Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the case captioned Danae Georges, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Louis Hernandez, Jr., Paula E. Boggs, Robert M. Bakish, Dr. Elizabeth M. Daley, Nancy Hawthorne, Dr. Youngme E. Moon, John H. Park, Peter M. Westley and Avid Technology, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2017- 0198 (Del. Ch., March 15, 2017), brings this action on behalf of herself and all similarly situated public stockholders of Avid Technology, Inc. against the Company and current members of the Company's board of directors -- specifically, Louis Hernandez, Jr., Paula E. Boggs, Robert M. Bakish, Dr. Elizabeth M. Daley, Nancy Hawthorne, Dr. Youngme E. Moon, John H. Park, and Peter M. Westley -- for breaching their fiduciary duties and violating Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL). This action arises from the Board's amendments to the Company's Bylaws (the Bylaws) and Certificate of Incorporation (the Charter) on October 19, 2011. As a consequence of these amendments, the Bylaws now contain Article III, Section 6 ("Section 6" or the "Super-Majority Provision"), permitting the removal of a director from office, only for cause, by the vote of at least sixty-six and two-thirds percent 66 2/3% of the voting power of the issued and outstanding capital stock entitled to vote in the election of directors. Section 6 of the Bylaws directly contradicts the plain language of Section 141(k) of the DGCL, which states that directors of a Delaware corporation may be removed by a vote of a "majority" of shares eligible to vote, says the complaint. This provision is thus, clearly invalid and unenforceable, it adds. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of all similarly situated public stockholders of Avid, declaratory relief finding that Article III, Section 6 of the Company's Bylaws violates Section 141(k) of the DGCL, and the entry of an order invalidating the Super-Majority Provision. Avid provides digital media recording and editing software for use by music and film studios, post-production facilities, radio, broadcasters and TV stations as well as independent professionals and amateurs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: (202) 524-4290 BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Defending 3 Class Suits in California --------------------------------------------------------- Banc of California, Inc. is defending three putative class action lawsuits, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On January 23, 2017, the first of three putative class action lawsuits, Garcia v. Banc of California, et al., Case No. 8:17-cv- 00118, was filed against Banc of California, James J. McKinney, Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr., and Steven A. Sugarman in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Thereafter, two related putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California: (1) Malak v. Banc of California, et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-00138 (January 26, 2017), asserting claims against Banc of California, James J. McKinney, and Steven A. Sugarman, and (2) Cardona v. Banc of California, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00621 (January 26, 2017), asserting claims against Banc of California, James J. McKinney, Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr., and Steven A. Sugarman. The lawsuits allege that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In general, they assert that the purported concealment of the defendants' alleged relationship with Jason Galanis caused various statements made by the defendants to be allegedly false and misleading. The lawsuits purport to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased stock in the Company between varying dates, inclusive of August 7, 2015 through January 23, 2017. The lawsuits seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The lawsuits are at a very early stage. Based on a review of the allegations, we believe that they are without merit and intend to vigorously contest them. Banc of California, Inc., a financial holding company regulated by the Federal Reserve Board, is focused on empowering California's diverse private businesses, entrepreneurs and communities. It is the parent company of Banc of California, National Association, a California based bank that is regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the Bank). The Bank has one primary wholly owned subsidiary, CS Financial, Inc. (CS Financial), a mortgage banking firm. The Bank is in process of ceasing the operations of CS Financial. BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Jackson" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, granted in part Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)in the case captioned, DELORES JACKSON, ET AL., Respondents, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellant, Case No. 2014- 07092, 2015-02594, Index No. 15145/11 (N.Y. App. Div.). The putative class action was commenced by the plaintiffs seeking, inter alia, injunctive relief and money damages against their bank, the defendant, Bank of America, N.A., based on allegations that accounts they held at New York City BOA branches were restrained in violation of the Exempt Income Protection Act of 2008 (L 2008, ch 575) (EIPA). The plaintiffs are judgment debtors whose bank accounts were restrained by judgment creditors in anticipation of enforcement of money judgments pursuant to CPLR article 52. As redress for these alleged wrongs, the plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including reimbursement of funds restrained and disbursed in error as well as any consequential damages caused by the lack of access to funds, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs allege that BOA employed a general practice of noncompliance with the EIPA, and seek class action certification on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated account holders. BOA moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint, contending that it complied with the EIPA and, in any event, the EIPA does not create a private right of action permitting an account holder to bring a plenary action against a depository bank seeking injunctive relief or money damages arising from a violation of the EIPA. The Supreme Court denied the motion in an order dated May 21, 2013. In the Decision dated April 12, 2017 available at https://is.gd/cFVqTa from Leagle.com, the Appellate Division concluded that the branch of BOA's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) was properly denied because it failed to establish its entitlement to dismissal of the cause of action alleging violations of the EIPA. Bank of America is represented by -- Benjamin H. Green, Esq. -- bgreen@zeklaw.com -- and -- David S.S. Hamilton, Esq. -- dhamilton@zeklaw.com -- ZEICHNERELLMAN& KRAUSE LLP Delores Jackson, et al. are represented by: G. Oliver Koppell, Esq. Daniel F. Schreck, Esq. CHARLES JUNTIKKA& ASSOCIATES, LLP 90 Park Avenue Suite 1100 New York, NY 10016 Tel: (800) 544-0484 BAYER HEALTHCARE: Wins Class Action Over Digestive Supplements -------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Trader at Law360 reports Bayer HealthCare LLC has landed a quick judgment win in the proposed class action alleging it lied about the health benefits of its digestive supplements, after a New Jersey federal judge concluded that the consumers had failed to present competent evidence supporting their claims. U.S. District Judge John Michael Vazquez on April 17 granted Bayer's request for summary judgment in a dispute alleging it violated California and Illinois consumer protection laws by wrongly promoting the "overall digestive health" benefits of Phillips' Colon Health probiotics when it knew those statements were actually false. One of the biggest problems with the consumers' argument was that their experts appeared to have confused the burden of proof required to substantiate a dietary supplement versus a drug, the judge pointed out. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines, a drug's effect must be supported by randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials, whereas dietary supplement effects can be substantiated by "competent and reliable scientific evidence." Even though Phillips' Colon Health is considered a dietary supplement, experts for the consumers argued that Bayer's statements were untrue because they were not supported by "well- conducted clinical trials," but that is an argument for lack of substantiation, not one proving actual falsity, Judge Vasquez said. "Not only does this testimony misstate the correct legal requirements for dietary supplements, it also confuses the burden of proof," the judge wrote. "Plaintiffs must prove that defendant's claims concerning PCH are false and misleading. Significantly, plaintiffs did not conduct their own double-blind, placebo controlled [randomly controlled trial] to support their position. In addition ... it does not appear that plaintiffs' expert was aware of the different legal standards that govern dietary supplements as opposed to drugs." The consumers' expert, Dr. Stefano Guandalini, had also put forward an argument that the studies conducted on Bayer's product proved that its claims of defending against "occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas and bloating" were false. However, the expert failed to account for the fact that those studies dealt with people suffering from particular issues, such as irritable bowel syndrome, and therefore don't prove actual falsity, Judge Vasquez noted. Again, while the doctor said that he saw "no evidence to support" Bayer's statements, he forgets that the question is not whether there is sufficient evidence to support Phillips' Colon Health's claims, but rather whether the consumers have presented proof that Phillips' Colon Health's claims are in fact false or misleading, the judge said. Dr. Guandalini later modified his opinion by stating that he "would be surprised" if Phillips' Colon Health promoted overall digestive health, but "even Dr. Guandalini's modified opinion is nothing more than a theory of lack of substantiation," Judge Vasquez wrote. "At worse, it is pure speculation in light of the fact that he never clinically tested his views, and, at best, it is an educated guess. However, either is insufficient to carry plaintiffs' burden of showing that the PCH's statements are actually false or misleading." A representative for Bayer told Law360 via email on April 20 the company was pleased with the ruling. "The benefits of Phillips' Colon Health have been fully substantiated as demonstrated by numerous clinical, animal and genetic studies," Bayer said. "This is the third time that a federal court has found that plaintiffs have failed to prove the falsity of Bayer's claims about the benefits of Phillips' Colon Health probiotics." Counsel for the consumers April 20 did not immediately return a request for comment. The case has been ongoing since 2011, and in November 2014, U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares threw out the customers' New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim, saying that the plaintiffs had no direct involvement with Bayer in New Jersey, where the company is based. However, he refused to scrap their consumer fraud claims under California and Illinois law, where they bought Phillips' Colon Health, finding that there were enough facts to infer that Bayer had made false or misleading statements. Bayer had requested summary judgment last May, arguing that the consumers had not shown that the company's statements were actually false and that the product didn't work for anyone, as was required. Bayer is represented by Lorna A. Dotro -- ldotro@coughlinduffy.com -- of Coughlin Duffy LLP and by Eugene A. Schoon -- eschoon@sidley.com -- and Kara L. McCall -- kcall@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP. The plaintiffs are represented by James E. Cecchi -- jcecchi@carellbyrne.com -- and Lindsey H. Taylor -- ltaylor@carellbyrne.com -- of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- and Thomas J. O'Reardon II -- toreardon@bholaw.com -- of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP and Adam J. Levitt and John E. Tangren of Grant & Eisenhofer PA. The case is In re: Bayer Phillips Colon Health Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, case number 2:11-cv-03017, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. BED BATH: "Blair" Class Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------- Donald Blair and Debbie Holland, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60178, originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on January 24, 2017, was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 3, 2017, and assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-02370-UA. The suit asserts contract product liability. Defendant, Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. is a national chain of domestic merchandise retail stores.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leonard W. Aragon, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Tel: (602) 840-5900 Email: leonard@hbsslaw.com - and - Robert Bruce Carey, Esq. Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro,LLP 11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Tel: (602) 840-5900 Fax: (602) 840-3012 Email: rob@hbsslaw.com - and - Stuart Mckinley Paynter, Esq. The Paynter Law Firm PLLC 1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 626-4486 Fax: (866) 734-0622 Email: stuart@paynterlawfirm.com - and - Todd S. Payne, Esq. Zebersky& Payne, LLP 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 989-6333 Fax: (954) 989-7781 Email: tpayne@zpllp.com - and - Edward Herbert Zebersky, Esq. Zebersky& Payne, LLP 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 989-6333 Fax: (954) 989-7781 Email: ezebersky@zpllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Peter W. Homer, Esq. Homer Bonner Jacobs, P.A. 1441 Brickell Avenue Four Seasons Tower Suite 1200 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 350-5100 Fax: (305) 372-2738 Email: phomer@homerbonner.com - and - Yaniv Adar, Esq. Homer Bonner Jacobs, P.A. 1200 Four Seasons Tower 1441 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 350-5136 Fax: (305) 982-0070 Email: yadar@homerbonner.com BLUE BUFFALO: Appeal on Class Suit Settlement Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that an appeal related to the approval of a class action settlement remains pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Company said, "On May 6, 2014, Nestle Purina Petcare Company ("Nestle Purina") filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which alleged that we had engaged in false advertising, commercial disparagement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment (the "Nestle Purina litigation"). Nestle Purina asserted, among other things, that, contrary to our advertising and labeling claims, certain BLUE products contained chicken or poultry by-product meals, artificial preservatives and/or corn and that certain products in the BLUE grain-free lines contained grains. Nestle Purina sought an injunction prohibiting us from making these alleged false and misleading statements, as well as treble damages, restitution and disgorgement of our profits, among other things. In addition, Nestle Purina issued press releases and made other public announcements, including advertising and promotional communications through emails and internet and social media websites that made claims similar to those contained in their lawsuit. Nestle Purina sought a declaratory judgment that these statements were true and did not constitute defamation. "On May 14, 2014, we filed a lawsuit against Nestle Purina in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which alleged that Nestle Purina has engaged in false advertising, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and defamation. We alleged, among other things, that the statements made by Nestle Purina advertising the allegations of their lawsuit were false and misleading, and we denied that our product formulas contain chicken or poultry by-product meals, artificial preservatives or corn and we denied that any of our grain-free products contain grains. Our complaint in this lawsuit sought, among other things, a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Nestle Purina from disseminating such false information, as well as damages (including punitive damages), restitution and disgorgement of all profits attributable to their false and deceptive advertising. "On June 4, 2014, this lawsuit was consolidated with the Nestle Purina lawsuit. We later amended our pleading to name as additional defendants the two advertising and public relations agencies that assisted Nestle Purina with its advertising campaign. "In the course of pretrial discovery in the consolidated Nestle Purina lawsuit, beginning in September 2014 documents and information were revealed that indicate that a facility owned by a major supplier of ingredients to the pet food industry, including Blue Buffalo, for a period of time, had mislabeled as "chicken meal" or "turkey meal" ingredients that contained other poultry- based ingredients that were inappropriate for inclusion in "chicken meal" or "turkey meal" under industry standards, and it appeared that this mislabeling was deliberate. This conduct was undertaken by the supplier without our knowledge, and we have since ceased purchasing ingredients from this facility. This supplier was one of our primary sources of chicken meal and turkey meal. As a result of the supplier's conduct, our advertising claims of "no chicken or poultry by-product meals" were inaccurate as to products containing the mislabeled ingredients. Therefore, we were exposed to false advertising liability to Nestle Purina and are similarly exposed to such liability to others to the extent a claimant can prove they were injured by our actions. Such liability may be material. "We brought third-party indemnity and damages claims, with respect to the Nestle Purina lawsuit, against the supplier that mislabeled the ingredients, as well as a broker involved in those transactions for such mislabeled ingredients. The trial court narrowed certain of our third party claims in response to motions to dismiss filed by the third parties but allowed numerous claims to proceed. In addition, we maintain insurance coverage for some of the Nestle Purina claims. "On October 15, 2014, we initiated a separate false advertising lawsuit against Nestle Purina in state court in Connecticut. Nestle Purina subsequently removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and the Connecticut District Court then granted Nestle Purina's motion to transfer this matter to the same court where Nestle Purina's lawsuit against us was pending. Our complaint sought an injunction prohibiting Nestle Purina from continuing these false and misleading advertisements, as well as damages and disgorgement of profits, among other things. On July 31, 2015, Nestle Purina filed an amended answer in this case that also asserted counterclaims against us. "On November 2, 2016, we entered into a settlement agreement with Nestle Purina pursuant to which we paid Nestle Purina $32.0 million, each party dismissed all of its claims and counterclaims against the other with prejudice, and we dismissed, with prejudice, our claims against Nestle Purina's advertising and public relations agencies (the "Nestle Purina Settlement"). We plan to continue to pursue our claims against the third party ingredient supplier and broker that sold us mislabeled ingredients, as well as against our insurance providers as further described below. However, we may not be able to fully recover from such supplier or broker, or from our insurance providers, the full amount paid in the Nestle Purina Settlement or other damages incurred in connection with our litigation with Nestle Purina. "In addition, a number of related putative consumer class action lawsuits were filed in various states in the U.S. making allegations similar to Nestle Purina's and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. We also brought damages and indemnity claims against our former ingredient supplier and broker with respect to these U.S. class action lawsuits. "In December 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve all of the U.S. class action lawsuits (the "Class Action Settlement"). Under the terms of the Class Action Settlement, we agreed to pay $32.0 million into a settlement fund, and on January 8, 2016, we paid this $32.0 million into an escrow account pending final court approval. Attorneys' fees awarded by the court and all costs of notice and claims administration will be paid from the settlement fund. "The Class Action Settlement received final court approval on May 19, 2016, and has since been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The amount that each class member who submits a claim for reimbursement will receive will depend on the total amount of Blue Buffalo products purchased by the claimant during the class period and certain other conditions including whether the claimant has a proof of purchase. "The Class Action Settlement value does not take into account any potential recovery from insurance or from our former ingredient supplier or broker, against whom we will continue to pursue our claims for indemnity and other damages. However, we may not be able to fully recover from such supplier or broker, or from our insurance providers the full amount of paid in the Class Action Settlement or other damages incurred in connection with the U.S. class action lawsuits." BLUE BUFFALO: Still Faces Class Suit in Ontario ----------------------------------------------- Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in February 2016, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa, Ontario, seeking damages and injunctive relief based on allegations similar to those made in the U.S. class actions. "We believe the claims are without merit and plan to vigorously defend ourselves," the Company said. BOSE CORP: Faces Class Action Over U.S. Wiretap Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Miami reports a class-action lawsuit has alleged that Bose is in violation of the U.S. Wiretap Act. A claim has been made in the case of Zak v. Bose Corp that the company is using its products and companion Bose Connect app to secretly collect, transmit and disclose customers' private music and audio selections to third parties, including a data mining company. While on the surface sharing your listening habits may appear to be harmless, Kyle Zak, who proposed the lawsuit, says that our musical preferences actually reveal a lot more information then we realize, for example, political leanings, sexual orientation and personalities, in general. "Indeed, one's personal audio selections -- including music, radio broadcast, Podcast, and lecture choices -- provide an incredible amount of insight into his or her personality, behavior, political views, and personal identity," the lawsuit said. "In fact, numerous scientific studies show that musical preferences reflect explicit characteristics such as age, personality, and values, and can likely even be used to identify people with autism spectrum conditions. And that's just a small sampling of what can be learned from one's music preferences." Zak said he discovered that Bose sent "all available media information" from his phone to third-party companies like Segment.io, whose website aims to "Collect all of your customer data and send it anywhere." Filed on April 18, the lawsuit seeks monetary damages for buyers of Bose's QuietComfort 35, QuietControl 30, SoundLink Around-Ear Wireless Headphones II, SoundLink Color II, SoundSport Wireless and SoundSport Pulse Wireless BULEE CAFE: "Morales" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Morales, Eduardo Aragon, Alex Santiago, Jorge Alvarez Vilchis and Fidel Cantu Ortega, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bulee Cafe, Ltd., Yong Won Bu and John Doe Lee, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02688 (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2017) seeks minimum wage and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law. Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a cafeteria/deli located at 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 under the name Sarah's Artisanal Kitchen where Plaintiffs were employed as cooks, salad preparers, griller, and expediter of catering orders and delivery workers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 CALIFORNIA: Upton Urges Court to Reject Judge Walsh R&R ------------------------------------------------------- David Upton objects to the Report and Recommendation dated March 17, 2017, by U.S. Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh, arguing that Judge Walsh erred in recommending that the Court deny Mr. Upton's Supplemental Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and grant defendant C. Roberts' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned, DAVID UPTON, Plaintiff, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Case No. 5: 10-cv-00631 AB (PJW)(C.D. Cal.). According to Mr. Upton, Judge Walsh erred by: -- disregarding the Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014) axiom that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, "the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor (R&R at 4-12);" -- disregarding Plaintiff's evidence disputing that he was on "parole" in any constitutionally recognized sense after the March 5, 2008 "expiration" of the four-year determinate term of imprisonment imposed by the trial court in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case Number FWV035165 because the facts of this Case distinguish it from Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972); -- determining that there is no merit to Plaintiff's claim that "punishment" through the July 30, 2008 California Penal Code Sec. 3056 "no bail" parole hold and August 11, 2008 nine-month ineligible for credit parole revocation hearing decision was "executed" without a judicial determination of probable cause and jury determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, without any analysis of, or distinguishing between the California Constitution, Art. 3, Sec. 3 "executive" authority of the California government's lawful jurisdiction to "execute" determinate, as opposed to in-determinate prison sentences (R&R at 4-7); -- crediting Defendant Roberts' collateral estoppel briefing position on the premise that Plaintiff "already challenged the constitutionality of California's parole statutes in a 2011 state habeas corpus petition," contrary to the fact that the issues presented in this case are distinguished from those presented in the habeas petition, and the habeas Court's judgment on Plaintiff's 2011 habeas petition did not establish law of the case and falls within the "failure to comply with the minimum standards of due process" exception to the issue preclusion rule (R&R at 5-6); -- crediting Defendant Roberts' malicious prosecution and conspiracy claim briefing positions, instead of Plaintiff's Declaration and Deposition to the contrary, with respect to the Court's clear misapprehension of summary judgment standards in light of controlling precedents (R&R at 7-10); and, -- crediting Defendant Roberts' qualified immunity briefing position notwithstanding the sentence "reductions" bestowed by California Penal Code Sec. 2933 and the March 5, 2008 "expiration" of the four-year determinate term of imprisonment imposed by the trial court in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case Number FWV035165 within the meaning of the principles of law articulated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556-557 (1974)(due process clause protected liberty interests in sentence reductions created by state law) and McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 407 U.S. 245 (1972) (holding "that continued incarceration after the lawful basis for custody expires violates due process under the Fourteenth Amendment") (R&R at 10-12). Mr. Upton asserts that the Court should decline to adopt the R&R. Instead, it should sustain his objections, and grant his motion for partial summary judgment to streamline his case for trial. Mr. Upton also claims the Court inaccurately construes his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as a request for "a declaration from the Court that California's parole system is unconstitutional." Mr. Upton contends that his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeks "summary judgment" on his claim that "punishment" through the July 30, 2008 California Penal Code Sec. 3056 "no bail" parole hold "executed" post "expiration" of the four-year determinate term of imprisonment imposed by the trial court in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case Number FWV035165 under color of California Penal Code Sections 3000, 3044, 3056, 3057, and 3060, violated his rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution within the meaning of Sec. 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code as a matter of clearly established federal law. Background Mr. Upton is a pro se plaintiff in two federal lawsuits that are pending in the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, California. The lawsuits allege criminal activity by agents of the California government, including the fraud of a Deputy Warden of a California Prison and the implication of other federal crimes by former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Mr. Upton filed Case No. 10-cv-00631 on June 10, 2010. The case, he says, arises from Defendant(s) July 30, 2008 "execution" of a California Penal Code Sec. 3056 "no bail" parole hold against Mr. Upton while acting in their official capacity as agents of the "executive" authority of the California government within the meaning of California Constitution, Art. 3, Sec. 3 where none of the four-year determinate term of imprisonment imposed by the trial court in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. FWV035165 existed to be "executed" post March 5, 2008 "expiration" in the context of the "executive" authority of the California government's lawful jurisdiction to "execute" a prison sentence within the meaning of the 3 branch legal theories of both the Federal and California constitutions as discussed in Plaintiff's Supplemental Motion for Partial Summary Judgement (Rec., Doc. No. 187) and related pleadings (Rec., Doc. Nos. 199, 200, 201, and 202), notwithstanding California's Penal Code Sec. 3000 constitutionally unrecognized mandatory "parole term." Following a jury trial in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case Number FWV035165, Mr. Upton was found guilty of willfully fleeing or evading a pursuing police officer, a violation of California Vehicle Code Sec. 2800.1(a)(count 1); carrying a loaded firearm with a prior felony conviction, a violation of California Penal Code Sec. 12031(a)(1),(2)(A)(count 2); and possession of a firearm with a prior felony conviction, a violation of California Penal Code Sec. 12021(a)(1)(count 3). On March 20, 2006, Plaintiff was sentenced to a total of four- years in state prison: the upper term of 3 years on count 2, plus an additional year for the prior prison term enhancement; the sentence on count 3 was stayed pursuant to California Penal Code Sec. 654. The four-year determinate term of imprisonment was "reduced" pursuant to California Penal Code Sec. 2933, and ended, on March 5, 2008, at which time Plaintiff was released from the custody of the state prison to a constitutionally unrecognized California Penal Code Sec. 3000 mandatory "parole term" after serving the statutory maximum sentence allowed for a criminal conviction for a violation of California Penal Code Sec. 2031(a)(1), (2)(A)(count 2). The California Penal Code Sec. 3056 "no bail" parole hold was "executed" against Mr. Upton on August 19, 2011, and as a result of which he was incarcerated at the San Bernardino County Jail until he was transferred to California Institution for Men-Chino State Prison on August 31 pending parole revocation proceedings. On September 15, he attended a parole revocation hearing during which California Board of Parole Hearings Deputy Commissioner, Steven D. Hernandez, executed the stayed sentence on Count 3 of San Bernardino County Superior Court Case Number FWV035165 in violation of California Penal Code Par. 654 to deny Plaintiff's eligibility for good time credits when he "executed" a nine-month ineligible for credit parole revocation hearing decision against Mr. Upton. According to Mr. Upton, the lawsuits also involve very important questions of federal constitutional law and the jurisdiction of the executive authority of the California government. He alleges that the Obama administration appointee District Court Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. and Chief Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh, to date, have aimed to keep the matters submerged and out of the view of public scrutiny. The judges have also sought to excuse the fraudulent activity of a Chino State Prison Deputy Warden within the meaning of section 3 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In a Feb. 28 e-mail to the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Upton said, "I am formally requesting the ACLU or one of their associates to request leave of court to file an Amicus Curiae brief (in support or in opposition), and I am requesting the news media to investigate the public interests involved in these lawsuits for the general information of the public." Upton Seeks to Certify Defendant Class On Dec. 8, 2016, Mr. Upton filed a motion, asking the District Court to certify his lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1) and (2), and (b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He proposed a defendant class and subclass, and to appoint the United States Attorney General's office to represent the certified defendant subclass pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed defendant class is defined as all individuals who have, or will in the future: (1) "executed" a California Penal Code Sec. 3056 "no bail" parole hold not involving the "execution" of a determinate term of imprisonment imposed pursuant to the judgment of a California court while acting in their official capacity as agents of the "executive" authority of the California government within the meaning of Art. 3, Sec. 3 of the California Constitution, including all state, county, and city law enforcement officers. The proposed defendant subclass is defined as all individuals who have, or will in the future: (2) "executed" a California Penal Code Sec. 3056 "no bail" parole hold not involving the "execution" of a determinate term of imprisonment imposed pursuant to the judgment of a California court while acting in their official capacity as an agent of the "executive" authority of any state, federal, or international law enforcement agency whether within the jurisdiction of the United States, or otherwise. Mr. Upton argued that certification of the proposed class and subclass is indispensable to enjoin the "executive" authority agent class and subclass from exceeding the outer limits of their power in the context of the separation-of-powers doctrine, in the future. He also asked the Court, upon class certification, to order a bifurcation of trials on the liability and damages issues within the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 42(b). Bid to Appoint DOJ as Amicus Curiae Mr. Upton has also asked the District Court to appoint the United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney for the Central District of California as Amicus Curiae and/or otherwise within the meaning of Rule 24(b)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Upton says the Department of Justice and the United States Attorney for the Central District of California are responsible for the administration and enforcement of Sections 241, 242, 1001, 1581(a), 1589(a)(3) and (4), and 1962(c) and (d) of Title 18 of the United States Code. Suit v. Fakhoury et al. The second lawsuit is captioned, David Upton, Plaintiff, v. Aref Fakhoury, et al., Defendant(s), Case No. 5: 13-cv-02359 AB (PJW)(C.D. Cal.), pending before the Hon. Andre Birotte Jr. On September 16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh recommended that the District Court dismiss Mr. Upton's U.S. Const., Amdt. 14 Due Process, Deliberate Indifference to the U.S. Const., Amdt. 8 prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment, and 18 U.S.C Sec. 241 and 242 criminal conspiracy claims against Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Silvia Garcia on the premise of "no constitutional right to a prison grievance system" and the immunity accorded the defendants in Engebretson v. Mahoney, 724 F. 3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2013). On October 4, 2016, Mr. Upton filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, arguing that: (1) Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia should not be entitled to dismissal with prejudice because she personally participated in or directed a criminal conspiracy to defy a facially valid court order, or knew about the criminal conspiracy and failed to act to prevent it; (2) Plaintiff was entitled to release from the custody of the state prison in uniformity and compliance with the four-year determinate term of imprisonment imposed by the trial court in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case Number FWV035165; (3) Because Plaintiff states a claim upon which relief can be granted Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia is not entitled to dismissal with prejudice because she personally participated in or directed and/or otherwise knew of and failed to act to prevent the criminal conspiracy to defy the facially valid court order; and (4) Even Counsel for the Defense, California Deputy Attorney General Leena M. Sheet contributes to the criminal conspiracy to defy the facially valid court order with the intent to subject Plaintiff to deprivation of his federal constitutional rights. Counsel for the Defense did not file a reply to Plaintiff's objections and Magistrate Judge Walsh did not file a final report and recommendation acknowledging Plaintiff's objections. On December 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 28 U.S.C Sec. 144 Affidavit requesting recusal of Magistrate Judge Walsh on the grounds that: (1) Judge Walsh's departure from the principles of law articulated in the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit's en banc ruling in Haygood v. Younger, 769 F. 2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1985) in his September 16, 2016 Report and Recommendation dismissing Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia with prejudice demonstrated a personal bias and prejudice against Plaintiff and in favor of Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia; and, (2) the manner by which judge Walsh dismissed Plaintiff's federal constitutional claims against Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia with prejudice in spite of the evidence presented by Plaintiff refuting Garcia's administrative appeal response in the regard of Plaintiff's January 1, 2012 release date computation issue implicated Sec. 3 of Title 18 of the United States Code. On December 27, 2016, District Court Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. denied Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Magistrate Judge Walsh citing the absence of an "extrajudicial source" of bias or prejudice. On December 29, Mr. Upton filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the grounds that the District Court's order denying his Motion to Disqualify Judge Walsh was manifestly unjust and clear error because the District Court ignored evidence that Judge Walsh had the 'extrajudicial knowledge' that Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia's administrative appeal response concerning Plaintiff's January 1, 2012 release date computation issue implicated Sec. 1001(a)(1)-(3) of Title 18 of the United States Code within the meaning of Sec. 3 of Title 18 of the United States Code. On January 13, 2017, District Court Judge Birotte denied Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration re Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Magistrate Judge Walsh. Judge Birotte opines that "it is difficult to ascertain the significance" of the knowledge that Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia's administrative appeal response in the regard of Plaintiff's January 1, 2012 release date computation issue implicates Sec. 1001(a)(1)-(3) of Title 18 of the United States Code. On January 19, 2017, the District Court issued an Order Accepting Report and Adopting Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge. On February 1, 2017, Mr. Upton filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Accepting Report and Adopting Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations on these grounds: (1) The District Court erred when it dismissed Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C Sec. 1983 claims against Chief Deputy Warden defendant Garcia with prejudice on the premise of "no constitutional right to a prison grievance system" because Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia had authority to rectify the issue of Plaintiff's prolonged detention from January 1, 2012 to April 18, 2012 in which case, Due Process required the State to provide a hearing after the responsible state officials were put on notice of Plaintiff's release date computation issue before a further denial of liberty [could] be said to be free from Sec. 1983 liability within the meaning of the principles of law articulated in Haygood v. Younger, 769 F. 2d 1350, 1354-55, 1359 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc) therefore, the fraudulent misrepresentations employed by Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia in her March 28, 2012 administrative appeal response in the regard of Plaintiff's January 1, 2012 release date deprived Plaintiff on liberty without due process of law and warrant reconsideration under both C.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 7-18(c) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b)(1) and (3); (2) The District Court defied the principles of law articulated in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 631 (1993) when it dismissed Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C Sec. 1983 claims against Chief Deputy Warden defendant Garcia with prejudice on the premise of the 'absolute immunity' accorded the prison officials in Engebretson v. Mahoney, 724 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2013) because this case falls outside of the limitations of Engebretson where Plaintiff's claims of entitlement to relief are predicated on how the named Defendants "executed" the State trial court's sentencing order in violation of California Penal Code Sec. 654, thereby warranting reconsideration under both C.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 7-18(c) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b)(3); (3) The District Court erred when it dismissed Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C Sec. 1983 claims against Chief Deputy Warden defendant Garcia with prejudice because albeit Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia's act of granting plaintiff's administrative appeal, sufficiently invalidated the prison disciplinary action(s) at bar in the context of the "favorable termination rule" applicable to Sec. 1983 suits involving the overall length of a prisoner's confinement within the meaning of the principles of law articulated in Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F. 3d 850, 865 (9th Cir. 2003), the fraudulent misrepresentations employed by Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia in her March 28, 2012 administrative appeal response in the regard of Plaintiff's January 1, 2012 release date: (A) implicate Sec. 1001(a)(1) and (3) of Title 18 of the United States Code for which Plaintiff demands to press criminal charges, (B) evince her individual culpability in the 'intent to punish' Plaintiff under color of state law and that she was 'deliberately indifferent' to Plaintiff's U.S. Const., Admt. 8 right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment within the meaning of the principles of law articulated in Haygood v. Younger, 769 F. 2d 1350, 1354-55, 1359 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc), and (C) mandate reconsideration of the order dismissing her with prejudice within the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(3); (4) Because 28 U.S.C Sec. 1331 confers upon the district courts original jurisdiction to entertain "federal questions" in all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," the District Court erred when it dismissed Plaintiff's federal constitutional claims against Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia brought under 18 U.S.C Sections 241 and 242 with prejudice, because Plaintiff's claims are "federal questions" and 18 U.S.C Sections 241 and 242 are laws of the United States; and (5) The District Court abused its discretion when it dismissed Plaintiff's U.S. Const., Amdt. 14 Due Process, Deliberate Indifference to the U.S. Const., Amdt. 8 prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment, and 18 U.S.C Sections 241 and 242 criminal conspiracy claims against Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia without leave to amend, thereby warranting reconsideration under both C.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 7-18(c) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b)(1) and (3). On February 15, 2017, Defendant(s) filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's request, arguing that (1) Plaintiff Does Not Meet The Standard for Reconsideration; and (2) Plaintiff Does Not Meet The Standard To Vacate An Order. Mr. Upton contends that Defendant(s) arguments in opposition to reconsideration must be rejected and Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration should be granted in its entirety because the facts and law presented in Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration establish that the Court committed clear error and the order dismissing Plaintiff's federal constitutional claims against Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia is manifestly unjust. CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Gordon Seeks Certification of TCPA Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Gordon moves the Court for an order certifying the case captioned RICHARD GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., a Florida corporation, and TRAVEL REWARDS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-05848 (N.D. Ill.), as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff brings the class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on behalf of a class defined as: All individuals in the United States who received one or more unsolicited text messages from or on behalf of Defendant Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. (the "Class"). Excluded from the Class are Defendant and its subsidiaries and affiliates; all persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the Class; governmental entities; and the judge to whom this case is assigned and any immediate family members thereof. The Plaintiff also asks the Court for an order (i) reserving ruling on the Motion for Class Certification, and (ii) allowing for and scheduling discovery to take place on class-wide issues. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Q1Rx5Xqi The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 211 W. Wacker, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com CARRABBA'S ITALIAN: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Noddy A. Fernandez at Florida Record reports a New York woman has filed suit against Carrabba's Italian Grill alleging she is owed unpaid wages. Kyley Reining, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated filed a complaint on April 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Bloomin' Brands Inc. and Carrabba's Italian Grill LLC alleging that the joint employers violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she was employed at the defendants' Amherst, New York location from January 2013 to May 2015. She alleges that throughout her employment with defendants, she frequently worked more than 60 hours per week without receiving overtime compensation for worked over 40 in a workweek. The plaintiff holds Bloomin' Brands Inc. and Carrabba's Italian Grill LLC responsible because the defendant allegedly classified her as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA, did not pay her premium overtime pay and failed to keep accurate time records. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order allowing the case to proceed as a collective action, award for unpaid wages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief as the court shall deem just and proper. She is represented by Gregg I. Shavitz -- gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com -- of Shavitz Law Group PA in Boca Raton and Michael Palitz -- mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com -- of Shavitz Law Group PA in New York. U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida Case number 8:17-cv-00820 CERTEGY CHECK: Alexander Moves to Certify 2 Classes, 2 Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MICHAEL ALEXANDER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CERTEGY CHECK SERVICES, INC., Case No. 8:16-cv-00859-EAK-JSS (M.D. Fla.), seeks an order certifying these classes and subclasses: For the period between August 15, 2013 and the present, a nationwide class of consumers whose checks were declined after tender by a consumer to a Certegy merchant, and a recommendation for declination was reported to that merchant by Certegy. For the period between August 15, 2013 and the present, a second nationwide class of consumers who visited Certegy's website, filled out the web-based form set forth on Certegy's "Declined Check Lookup" page, or who contacted Certegy by telephone, but who never were provided with the information contained in their file. For the period between December 1, 2012 and the present, a first subclass of Florida consumers whose checks were declined after tender by a consumer to a Certegy merchant and a recommendation for declination was reported to that merchant by Certegy. For the period between December 1, 2012 and the present, a second subclass of Florida consumers who visited Certegy's website, filled out the web-based form set forth on Certegy's "Declined Check Lookup" page, or who contacted Certegy by telephone, but who never were provided with the information contained in their file. In his complaint, Mr. Alexander alleges that the Defendant violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In violation of the FCRA, Certegy routinely fails to assure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer information it provides to merchants in connection with its check-authorization recommendations, he contends. He adds, among other things, that when consumers dispute the accuracy of that information, Certegy also routinely and systematically violates FCRA by failing to conduct reasonable and timely reinvestigations of disputed information. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=i0In985C The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven W. Teppler, Esq. Brittany R. Ford, Esq. ABBOTT LAW GROUP, P.A. 2929 Plummer Cove Road Jacksonville, FL 32223 Telephone: (904) 292-1111 Facsimile: (904) 292-1220 E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com bford@abbottlawpa.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Marcio W. Valladares, Esq. Patrick A. Barthle, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-4738 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com mvalladares@forthepeople.com pbarthle@forthepeople.com CHARIOTS OF HIRE: Certification of Class Sought in "Phipps" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned GREGORY PHIPPS AND BRIAN MENSING, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CHARIOTS OF HIRE, INC. AND JOHN MARK PARSONS, Case No. 3:17-cv-00097-TAV-CCS (E.D. Tenn.), move the Court to: (1) authorize the case to proceed as an opt-in collective action for overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, on behalf of non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant, and who, during the last three years, were denied minimum wage and proper overtime compensation; (2) order the Defendant(s) to immediately provide a list of names, last known addresses, last known telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses for all employees of Defendants, who were non-exempt employees of Defendants during the previous three years and were denied proper minimum wage and overtime compensation; (3) order notice be mailed to employees, posted prominently at any location where putative class members work, e-mailed to employees, enclosed with putative class members' next regularly scheduled paychecks, and posted prominently at Defendants' places of business so they can assert their claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation; and (4) order the statute of limitations for the putative class be tolled as of the date the Motion is granted. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court that opt-in plaintiffs' Consent Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wlTpNzDx The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan A. Street, Esq. G. Brandon Hall, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT & CONSUMER LAW GROUP 525 4th Ave. South Nashville, TN 37210 Telephone: (615) 850-0632 CHOCK DEE CORP: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Romualdo Sosa Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Chock Dee Corp., Lucky Fluke Corp., Pamuan Likitsansook and Phimploy Likitsansook, Defendants, Case No. 1:17- cv-02731 (S.D. N.Y., April 14, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours premium, applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Laws. Chock Dee Corp. and Lucky Fluke Corp. operate Wondee Siam I and Wondee Siam II, Thai restaurants owned by Pamuan Likitsansook and Phimploy Likitsansook, located at 792 Ninth Avenue, New York, NY 10019 where Plaintiff worked as a general laborer. Sosa regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked each week. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 CMC DRYWALL: "Maradiaga" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Horian Elias Maradiaga, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. C.M.C. Drywall, Inc. and Tulio Murillo, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03469 (E.D. La., April 14, 2017) seeks unpaid overtime wages due and owing, applicable liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre- judgment and post-judgment interest on all monetary amounts awarded and such other general and equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. CMC is a commercial drywall contractor specializing in installing drywall, insulation and other related activities where Plaintiff was employed as a general construction laborer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Louisiana Bar #33696 Telephone: (504) 534-5005 Facsimile: (504) 272-2956 Email: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com - and - William H. Beaumont, Esq. 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 483-8008 Email: whbeaumont@gmail.com COMCAST CORP: Judge Says Class Action Unlikely to Net Big Payout ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino at Courthouse News reports a class action claiming Comcast siphons billions of dollars from cable TV subscribers through phony, undisclosed fees is unlikely to net a big payout, a federal judge said on April 20. "The case seems to be worth very little money in any event, and the claims of plaintiffs are sketchy," U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said during a hearing on a motion to dismiss. Lead plaintiff Dan Adkins sued Comcast in October 2016, claiming it added "newly invented" fees to cable bills, raising customers' monthly charges above the prices they were promised when they signed up. Lead class counsel Daniel Hattis said Comcast misrepresented the total cost of its TV bundles by charging up to USD10 extra each month in "broadcast TV" and "regional sports" fees, which it tried to pass off as government-imposed taxes. The complaint cites web chats with Comcast agents, who told consumers and subscribers they would not incur extra charges on their bills beyond taxes, and that the disputed fees were in fact government required fees, though they are not. However, because customers have the option to cancel service and get a full refund within 30 days, Chhabria said the case is "potentially worth very little money." Adkins was named lead plaintiff less than 30 days after he signed up for service. Instead of suing the nation's largest cable-media company, he could have simply canceled his subscription and received a full refund, Comcast attorney Seamus Duffy -- seamus.duffy@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle argued. Chhabria replied: "He still has a claim for being duped into signing up for service." In its motion to dismiss, Comcast said it charges the fees to recover some of the costs of "retransmitting broadcast TV signals" and "distributing regional sports networks." It says Congress "encouraged" it to itemize those costs as separate charges when it passed the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, in an attempt to "educate consumers about the cause of bill increases." Nevertheless, the plaintiffs say Comcast failed to clearly disclose those hidden fees and charges when it quoted prices to customers who were signing up for service. Chhabria did not find Comcast's direct mail ads and itemized bills particularly misleading, but he did find the failure to clearly disclose extra fees during the signup process sufficient to support a claim of misrepresentation. Duffy said the extra fees were clearly disclosed in contracts signed by customers and in a separate link to terms of service in the online ordering process. "The problem is, two contradictory representations were made," Chhabria replied. "You have the contract terms, but the order summary doesn't mention those fees." Chhabria said the order summary, which quoted a lower monthly price than the actual total, was displayed more prominently than a link to the terms of service. Duffy countered that the contract documents deserve greater focus and attention when analyzing Comcast's liability. "It's not unusual to have a monthly recurring charge," Duffy said. "That's what customers expect." The Comcast attorney said Adkins and others agreed to be bound by the contractual terms when they signed up. "At least the contract claim should be dismissed because the contract says those charges will be included," Duffy said. Chhabria said he would dismiss with leave to amend, and that the plaintiffs have "some cleaning up to do" before they file an amended complaint. He stayed ruling on whether six out-of-state named plaintiffs could also sue Comcast over the fees, pending resolution of a Supreme Court case set to be decided in June. A ruling in Bristol- Myers Squibb Co. v. San Francisco County Superior Court will determine whether out-of-state plaintiffs can sue an out-of-state entity like Comcast, headquartered in Pennsylvania, for injuries suffered in a separate state. All eight named plaintiffs in the Adkins suit opted out of Comcast's arbitration clause, which would have forced them to resolve their claims outside of court. A second federal class action against Comcast was filed in San Francisco by lead plaintiff Joseph Loomis, who did not opt out of the arbitration clause but claims it is unenforceable under California law. Internet and cable TV providers are among the most-hated companies in America, according to numerous customer surveys, and the Yahoo Finance website reported in January that Comcast leads the list. Comcast is the nation's largest cable-media company and the 35th largest publicly traded company on the planet, with USD74.5 billion in annual revenue and USD148.2 billion in market capitalization as of May 2016, according to Forbes. Comcast did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment April 20. CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Defending Suit over FairPoint Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit related to the merger with FairPoint, Consolidated Communications said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said, "On December 3, 2016, we entered into a definitive agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with FairPoint Communications, Inc. ("FairPoint") to acquire all the issued and outstanding shares of FairPoint in exchange for shares of our common stock. FairPoint is an advanced communications provider to business, wholesale and residential customers within its service territory, which spans across 17 states. FairPoint owns and operates a robust fiber-based network with more than 21,000 route miles of fiber, including 17,000 route miles of fiber in northern New England. This pending acquisition reflects our strategy to diversify revenue and cash flows amongst multiple products and to expand our network to new markets. The merger is subject to standard closing conditions including the approval of our stockholders and FairPoint's stockholders, the approval of the listing of additional shares of Consolidated common stock to be issued to FairPoint's stockholders, required federal and state regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions. We expect the merger to close by mid-2017." The Company said, "On February 7, 2017, an alleged class action complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of FairPoint in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Case No. 3:17-cv-51) against us, FairPoint and its directors. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the disclosures in our Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the SEC on January 26, 2017, in connection with the Merger Agreement, are materially incomplete and misleading in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiff seeks to enjoin us from consummating the merger with FairPoint on the agreed-upon terms or, alternatively, to rescind the merger in the event that we consummate the merger, in addition to damages and attorney fees and costs." "We believe the allegations made in this complaint are without merit. We have not yet filed an answer or other responsive pleading to the complaint." CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Bakov Seeks Certification of TCPA Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying the case entitled ANGEL BAKOV, JULIE HERRERA, and KINAYA HEWLETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONSOLIDATED WORLD TRAVEL, INC. d/b/a HOLIDAY CRUISE LINE, a Florida corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-02980 (N.D. Ill.), as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Angel Bakov, et al., bring the class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on behalf of two classes defined as: (1) All individuals in the United States whose cellular telephone number Defendant, or someone on Defendant's behalf, called using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice without prior express written consent of the called party (the "TCPA Class"); and (2) All persons in the State of Illinois who Defendant, or someone on Defendant's behalf, called and played a prerecorded message placed by any device or system programmed to sequentially or randomly access stored telephone numbers to automatically connect a telephone with a recorded message (the "ATDA Class"). Excluded from the Classes are Defendant and its subsidiaries and affiliates; all persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the Class; governmental entities; and the judge to whom the case is assigned and any immediate family members thereof. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter and reserve ruling on their Motion for Class Certification, and to allow for and schedule discovery to take place on class-wide issues. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=G0ya9kCT Plaintiffs Angel Bakov and Julie Herrera are represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. Ismael T. Salam, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com kshamberg@litedepalma.com isalam@litedepalma.com - and - Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq. JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C. 221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 789-9700 E-mail: jeff@jgbrownlaw.com - and - Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 N. State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com Plaintiff Kinaya Hewlett is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7127 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com CRUMP LIFE: Dolemba's Bid to Certify Denied But May Be Renewed -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on March 17, 2017, in the case entitled Scott Dolemba v. Crump Life Insurance Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-08091 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo. The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, which has been repeatedly stayed pending settlement negotiations, is denied without prejudice to renewal if the negotiations are unsuccessful. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=A7N5oe03 CVS HEALTH: Corcoran's Bid to Certify Denied; Conference on May 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order in the lawsuit entitled CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, ET AL. v. CVS HEALTH, ET AL., Case No. 4:15-cv-03504-YGR (N.D. Cal.): * denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; * granting in part the Defendants' motion to strike the declaration of Dr. Navarro; and * denying as moot the Defendants' motion to strike the declaration of Dr. Hay. The Court previously scheduled a case management conference for May 1, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. No later than April 24, 2017, the parties must file an updated joint case management statement, but it shall focus on the next steps of the litigation, in particular, whether the Plaintiffs intend to file an amended motion for class certification and the parties' plans for any dispositive motions and the timing for the same. The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against the Defendants alleging that they knowingly overcharged millions of insured patients by submitting falsely inflated drug prices to pharmacy benefit managers and third-party payor insurance providers, which resulted in higher copayment obligations for the Plaintiffs. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E3GlFRdP DEALDASH INC: Sells Phony Name-Brand Products, Pstikyan Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dionne Cordell-Whitney, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the penny auction site DealDash made hundreds of thousands of dollars selling phony name-brand products, according to a class action in Minneapolis, from a Californian who says he lost thousands of dollars to the scam. Grant Pstikyan filed the complaint against DealDash in April 13, with a federal judge in Minnesota. DealDash, founded in 2009, has registered millions of paying users throughout the United States, and American retirees are its largest demographic, according to the 35-page lawsuit. While purportedly based in Finland by its 24-year-old "controlling owner," William Wolfram, DealDash exclusively targets American consumers and ships merchandise only to the United States, the complaint states. DealDash.com "purports to offer consumers the chance to win brand name merchandise for a tiny fraction of the retail price. Consumers pay money in advance for a certain number of intangible 'bids,' and then spend those bids in daily 'auctions' in hopes of winning the offered products at steep discounts. DealDash continually advertises to consumers that they can save up to 90%, or more, off brand name merchandise ranging from electronics, to furniture, to art, to flatware, to clothing and accessories," the complaint states. It adds: "The problem is that DealDash is sham." Pstikyan claims that Deal Dash actually is an illegal lottery, and that "the luxury 'brand name' products that DealDash offers consumers are not true luxury brands at all; they are cheap, generic brands that do not sell in substantial volumes anywhere, except through DealDash and one of its affiliates." Pstikyan says he spent $5,923 buying 44,250 bids on DealDash's website in November and December 2016. He says he spent still more money on the bids themselves, but lost most of the auctions, and even when he "wins," he and others spend far more, through buying the right to bid and the bids, and the sale price, than the cheap, generic knockoffs are worth. "DealDash advertises its fake 'brand name' products at outrageously high retail prices -- totally divorced from economic reality," the complaint states. "In fact, consumers are betting on products that are not worth even half their advertised values, and in some cases, not worth one tenth of the advertised value." DealDash does not disclose how many prepaid bids its "winners" spend on an item, Pstikyan says, though it's often more than the item is worth. "Meanwhile, DealDash auction losers -- all but one participant in each auction -- lose all of their prepaid 'bids' and walk away with nothing. Thus, when a consumer loses a DealDash 'auction,' the House wins. When a consumer wins a DealDash 'auction,' the House wins. Even 'winning' consumers unwittingly lose." The hook is the 10-second countdown for each auction, Pstikyan says. Once an auction begins, a 10-second clock begins to count down. During the countdown, any user with prepaid bids in their DealDash account can place the first bid. If there is a higher bid, the countdown clock resets to 10, and the pattern continues so longer as higher bids come in, until the 10-second clock runs out. Aside from the bid offer, the cost of making each bid comes to whatever the consumer paid for it, usually 12 to 15 cents, Pstikyan says. But DealDash auctions usually run for several hours, or even days, so the costs of bids alone can exceed the cost of any item. "If the 10-second clock runs out at a time when the featured item's price has ticked up to $100.00, this means that participating consumers have spent a total of $10,000 bids in the auction, with the last bidder (whoever they are) 'winning' the right to purchase the offered product from DealDash for an additional $100.00,'" Pstikyan says. In other words, a winning bidder who jumps in at the end may spend less than $1 on his bid, but the losers collectively may have spent more than $1,000 for the right to lose. DealDash did not respond to a request for comment on April 14. Pstikyan seeks class certification, disgorgement of unjust profits, and damages for consumer fraud, false advertising, unlawful trade practices and unjust enrichment. The case is captioned, GRANT PSTIKYAN, Plaintiff, v. DEALDASH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-01164 (D. Minn., April 13, 2017). Liaison Counsel for Plaintiff: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Eric S. Taubel, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com etaubel@gustafsongluek.com Lead Counsel for Plaintiff: Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq. David J. Harris, Jr., Esq. Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1760 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1333 Facsimile: (619) 238-5425 E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com djh@classactionlaw.com trk@classactionlaw.com DELAWARE: 3rd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Inmates' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Danberg, McBride and Coupe in the case captioned, PHILIP A. WHARTON; JOSEPH ROUNDTREE; JAMES MADDOX; LAMAR CORREA, Appellants, v. CARL C. DANBERG; CATHY ESCHERICH; REBECCA MCBRIDE; ROBERT COUPE, Case No. 16-1988 (3rd Cir.). The putative class action alleges that the Delaware correctional system routinely fails to release inmates in a timely manner, holding them for days or weeks beyond when they should be set free. Appellants, a group of inmates who were over-detained, have sued top correctional officials -- specifically, former Delaware Department of Corrections (DDOC) Commissioner Carl Danberg, current DDOC Commissioner Robert Coupe, and Rebecca McBride, the current Director of the DDOC Central Offender Records division (COR)--seeking both damages and structural reform of COR. At the close of discovery, Plaintiffs moved for class certification and Defendants for summary judgment. The Court found that there was no "common contention" the truth of which could "resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke." The Court also found that all claims against Defendants in their official capacities were barred by sovereign immunity; it declined to reach the question of qualified immunity; and it granted summary judgment on Appellants' state law claims. Plaintiffs filed a Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment, which was denied because Plaintiffs simply rehashed the arguments posed on summary judgment. Plaintiffs then appealed all of the federal claims asserted. In a Memorandum dated April 19, 2017 available at https://is.gd/2uh9aQ from Leagle.com, the Third Circuit held that Appellants have not shown deliberate indifference on all Eighth Amendment claims. Philip A. Wharton, et al. are represented by: Stephen A. Hampton, Esq. GRADY & HAMPTON 6, North Bradford Street, Dover, DE 19904 Tel:(302)678-1265 Carl C. Danberg et al. are represented by: Michael F. McTaggart, Esq. DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 820, North French Street, Carvel Office Building, 6th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302)577-8993 DRIVE SAFE: "Payton" Sues Over Illegal Text Blast Ads ----------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Payton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Drive Safe Ride Safe, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. BC657580 (Cal. Super., April 12, 2017), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations. Defendant sent unsolicited text messages offering a job to Plaintiff's cellular telephone via Defendant's SMS Blasting Platform. [BN] 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 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Suit Stresses Importance of Sweepstakes Atty ----------------------------------------------------------------- David O. Klein, Esq., at Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that a federal district court in Detroit refused to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit filed against Dunham's Athleisure Corporation ("Dunham's") concerning the regional sporting goods retailer's sweepstakes sponsorship and marketing practices, reinforcing the importance of consulting an experienced sweepstakes lawyer when formulating and/or sponsoring a promotional contest or sweepstakes. How can a sweepstakes lawyer help keep promotions legally compliant? Sweepstakes and Promotional Contests Dunham's sells athletic equipment, sports apparel, footwear and other sporting goods at over 230 Dunham's Sports stores throughout the Midwest. As a marketing vehicle for its sporting goods sales, Dunham's sponsors a variety of online promotional contests and sweepstakes. Prizes and giveaways have included free sporting goods, sports tickets, trip packages and Dunham's gift cards and products. Sweepstakes Lawsuit In May 2016, Michigan resident Abdul Hamza sued Dunham's in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Case No. 16-cv-11641) for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Mr. Hamza's putative class action complaint claims that Dunham's delivered thousands of unsolicited promotional text messages to consumers' mobile phones. Dunham's claims that Aisha Hamza entered one of its sweepstakes promotions in February 2016 and, at that time, opted into Dunham's promotional text messaging program using Mr. Hamza's mailing address and telephone number. On March 22, 2017, the Court denied in part Dunham's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, finding that Mr. Hamza had alleged sufficient violations of the TCPA. Since that time, Dunham's has filed a third-party complaint against Ms. Hamza for alleged fraud, asking the Court to enter judgment against Ms. Hamza in an amount equal to any sums Dunham's is required to pay Mr. Hamza. How a Sweepstakes Lawyer Can Help When administered effectively, promotional contests and sweepstakes have the potential to create a lot of buzz (and revenue) for the sponsor. However, as the above-referenced case demonstrates, sweepstakes sponsors may also find themselves facing substantial legal liability. Many sweepstakes-related legal risks can be minimized or eliminated entirely by working with experienced marketing counsel before sponsoring a promotion. Well-planned promotions can help protect contest and sweepstakes sponsors from substantial liability. Additionally, a sweepstakes lawyer can help promotion sponsors address a number of other legal concerns related to contest rules, advertising, consumer privacy, bonding requirements and other areas of compliance. E TRANSPORT CARRIERS: "Reynolds" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Reynolds, on behalf of himself individually, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. E Transport Carriers and PHB Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01185 (S.D. Tex., April 16, 2017), seeks all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. PHB Inc., is a staffing company that hired Plaintiff and assigned him to E Transport Carriers as a yard driver. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Phone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com ECLINICALWORKS LLC: Licari Family Seeks Certification of Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled LICARI FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC INC., a Florida corporation, and PETER LICARI, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. ECLINICALWORKS, LLC, ECLINICALDIRECT, LLC, ECLINICALWEB, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 8:16-cv-03461-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla.), seeks an order certifying this class: All persons who were sent one or more of the facsimile sent on or about February 4, 2014, from either "eClinicalWorks, LLC, eClinicalDirect LLC, or eClinicalWeb, LLC," which contained an opt out notice the same or similar to the following: "If you would like to opt out from fax communications please go to www.eclinicalworks.com/optoutfax." The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives and appoint the law firm of Anderson + Wanca as class counsel. The case arises out of a fax-advertising campaign wherein facsimile advertisements were sent to the Plaintiffs and the proposed class in one broadcast conducted on February 4, 2014. The Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit alleging that the Fax violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The Plaintiffs suggest that notice under Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure be first attempted by fax (three attempts) and if unsuccessful, by postcard (U.S. Mail). The Plaintiffs submit that in the event the Court certifies the Class, notice by fax would defray costs and is particularly expeditious in this case as all of the fax numbers to which notice would be sent are already of record. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=k6XZB8Yi The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com EPATIENTS.COM INC: "Gress" Suit Voluntarily Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on March 21, 2017, in the case titled William P. Gress v. ePatients.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv- 01119 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Milton I. Shadur. The minute entry states that: -- the case in its entirety is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice and without costs; -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied as moot; and -- status hearing set for April 18, 2017, is stricken. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KJXHqjoX FAT DADDY: Judge Certifies Unpaid Overtime Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Brian Gilliland at Ocean City Today reports U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett conditionally certified a class action suit against the owners of Fat Daddy's restaurants in Ocean City, alleging wage violations stemming from unpaid overtime at both resort locations. The court will be issuing notices to workers employed at the restaurants between April 13, 2014 and April 13, 2017, allowing them to opt in to the case as part of the discovery phase. The lawsuit was filed in December. The plaintiff, Brandon Ware, alleges that owners Edward and Lisa Braude implemented and enforced a policy of not paying overtime to employees who were regularly scheduled for more than 40 hours of work per week. The Fair Labor Standards Act provides that, unless a business is exempt, eligible employees must receive overtime pay for any hours worked over 40 in one workweek. There is an exemption for employees of seasonal businesses, although both Fat Daddy's locations are open year-round. Restaurants were exempt from certain provisions of the Maryland Wage and Hour Law until July 2014. Ware, according to the judge's order, was employed at the uptown eatery at 8201 Coastal Highway from June to October 2016. The downtown restaurant is at 216 Baltimore Ave. Ware alleges Edward Braude told him at his interview that "Fat Daddy's did not pay overtime," and that employees were required to work a set number of weekly hours that exceeded the standard 40. The ruling states Ware provided affidavits and pay stubs revealing he was paid on an hourly basis even after working 40 hours per week and never received overtime compensation. Ware said neither he, nor any other similarly situated employee, were paid overtime for the hours they worked in excess of 40 per week. According to the ruling, Ware provided documentation of conversations with two employees at the uptown store, along with two employees who worked at both locations, none of whom received overtime compensation. He also provided evidence to the court that the restaurants shared resources and supplies, which, according to the court, unites the operations for a single business purpose -- thus linking them for legal purposes. The defense countered this argument, unsuccessfully, by asserting that Ware was only employed at the uptown restaurant and he failed to prove other employees were subjected to the same policy. However, the judge ruled that because "similarly situated" is not necessarily the same thing as "identical." Edward Braude did not respond to requests for comment on this story. FIELD ASSET: Bid to Decertify Class in "Bowerman" Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William H. Orrick entered an order in the lawsuit styled FRED BOWERMAN, et al. v. FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-00057-WHO (N.D. Cal.): -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to their status as employees under the law, and their resulting entitlement to expenses and overtime pay; -- denying FAS's motion to decertify the class; -- granting FAS's motion for summary judgment with respect to Julia Magdaleno; and -- denying FAS's motion for summary judgment with respect to Matthew Cohick and Eric Ackel. The damages phase of the case remains set for trial on May 22, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. The pre-trial conference is set for April 24, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. The lawsuit is a classwide misclassification case involving vendors, who perform property preservation services in California for FAS. The certified class is defined as: All persons who at any time from January 7, 2009 up to and through the time of judgment (the "Class Period") (1) were designated by FAS as independent contractors; (2) personally performed property preservation work in California pursuant to FAS work orders; and (3) while working for FAS during the Class Period, did not work for any other entity more than 30 percent of the time. The class excludes persons who primarily performed rehabilitation or remodel work for FAS. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H8q3m6Es FIRST TENNESSEE: Judge OKs $16.8-Mil. Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------ Andy Meek at Memphis Daily News Shelby County Circuit Court Judge Mary Wagner has approved an agreement to settle a class-action lawsuit against First Tennessee Bank related to overdraft fees that calls for the bank to put USD16.8 million into a settlement fund. The case was approaching the six-year mark when attorneys for both sides appeared in Circuit Court Thursday, April 20, for the final hearing to approve the settlement. Jeff Ostrow, a Florida-based attorney for the plaintiffs, said it had been "an incredibly hard- fought case," with "an unbelievable opponent who fought us at every turn." That fight was over the way First Tennessee posted debit card transactions from the highest dollar amount to the lowest. The plaintiffs in the case argued that led to "an increased number of overdraft fees assessed to customers." First Tennessee maintains it did nothing wrong and followed applicable laws and regulations, although it has changed its practice of posting from high to low. Ostrow said affected members of the class don't have to take extra steps to benefit from the settlement fund; once customers are deemed eligible, they'll get their share via either direct deposit or a check mailed to them. "We're extremely pleased with the settlement," he said about the case, which included 18 depositions, adding that no money would go back to the bank if anything is left over after the disbursements. Plaintiffs William and Sylvia Hawkins brought the suit on Sept. 6, 2011. The dates the suit covers are Sept. 6, 2005, through Feb. 20, 2013. A First Tennessee representative was not immediately available for comment. However, the bank previously noted that not only has it followed all laws and regulations in its overdraft assessments, but the "high-to-low" practice was once a common banking industry practice. First Tennessee has also since changed the way it handles those transactions. A website related to the settlement, firsttennesseebankoverdraftlitigation.com, includes relevant case documents and other questions that settlement participants need to know. Among other things, it also includes a "Payment Estimator" tab that lets class members estimate the share of the settlement fund they could get using a unique identifying number they received via postcard. Attorneys' fees, costs and expenses awarded to the class counsel will come out of the settlement, as well as other relevant costs, expenses and awards. The exact amount members of the settlement will receive is still being determined. FITBIT INC: July 10 Trial in Sleep Tracking Suit ------------------------------------------------ Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that trial is scheduled for July 10, 2017, in a class action lawsuit over its sleep tracking devices. On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available in certain trackers does not perform as advertised. Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Plaintiffs have amended their complaint four times, and on January 15, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. On July 15, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. Trial is currently scheduled for July 10, 2017. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. FITBIT INC: Class Suit Over Heart Rate Devices Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a hearing was scheduled for March 16, 2017, on the Company's motion to compel arbitration related to the class action lawsuit over its heart rate tracking devices. On January 6, 2016 and February 16, 2016, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the PurePulse heart rate tracking technology does not consistently and accurately record users' heart rates. Plaintiffs allege common law claims as well as violations of various states' false advertising and unfair competition statutes, and seek class certification, injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, and statutory penalties and damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint and, on May 19, 2016, filed an Amended Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint. The Company has filed a motion to compel arbitration, and a hearing was scheduled for March 16, 2017. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. FITBIT INC: IPO Securities Litigation Pending --------------------------------------------- Fitbit, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit related to its IPO, Fitbit said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On January 11, 2016, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California naming as defendants the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and underwriters of the Company's IPO. On May 10, 2016, the Court appointed the Fitbit Investor Group (consisting of five individual investors) as lead plaintiff, and an Amended Complaint was filed on July 1, 2016. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, based on alleged materially false and misleading statements about the Company's products between October 27, 2014 and November 23, 2015. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities (i) on the open market between June 18, 2015 and May 19, 2016; and/or (ii) pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. Plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. FITBIT INC: 2 Class Suits Consolidated in San Francisco Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that two securities class action lawsuit have been consolidated in the County of San Francisco. On April 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Act was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the Company, certain of its officers, its board members, underwriters of our IPO, and a number of its investors. Plaintiff alleges that the IPO registration statement contained material misstatements about the Company's products. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock in and/or traceable to the IPO. Plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On May 17, 2016, a similar class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The cases have now been consolidated in the County of San Francisco. FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Hill" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS HILL, Individually and On behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01324-WSD (N.D. Ga., April 13, 2017), alleges that in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Plaintiff, and all other inside sales representatives, routinely worked over 40 hours without any pay or compensation, or any record of their actual times, and the Defendant maintained a common unlawful pay practice and policy of simply not paying overtime wages even when it absolutely knew the inside sales representatives were routinely working over 40 hours in work weeks. Defendant provides fuel cards and workforce payment products to businesses, commercial fleets, oil companies, petroleum marketers and government entities throughout the United States. Plaintiff worked as an inside sales representative selling fuel cards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. 1201 Peachtree Street Colony Square, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30361 Phone: (813) 639-9366 Fax: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mlf@feldmanlegal.us FORTRESS INVESTMENT: Court Bars Mother from Filing FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California barred Lynn Gavin from filing suit and granted Bamidele Hambolu's application to proceed in forma pauperis in the case captioned, BAMIDELE HAMBOLU, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01039-JSC (EMC) (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Lynn Gavin and Bamidele Hambolu (mother and son, respectively) initially filed the instant putative class action in the Central District of California. In February 2017, the Central District court transferred the action to the District. Upon transfer, the Court ruled that as to Ms. Gavin, her claims for relief are barred as they fall within the scope of the pre-filing review order, With respect to Mr. Hambolu, who is a co-plaintiff in the case, the Court orders the Clerk of the Court to reassign the entirety of the case, including Mr. Hambolu's claims. Ms. Gavin alleges, inter alia, that Defendants engaged in practices that violate the Fair Debt Collections Practice Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692(e), and that constitute wrongful eviction. Since the case arises from Ms. Gavin's Parkmerced eviction in 2012, the case falls squarely within the Court's previous pre-filing review order barring Ms. Gavin from filing any further suits based on her alleged wrongful eviction from Parkmerced apartments. Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). In his Order dated April 19, 2017 available at https://is.gd/qcgxgj from Leagle.com, Judge Chen finds Ms. Gavin's claims barred by the pre-filing order. The Court also grants Mr. Hambolu's IFP application but, pursuant to its Section 1915(e) review, it dismisses with prejudice his federal claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state claims. Mr. Hambolu is ordered to file within two weeks to show cause as to why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant. FOX LAKE, IL: Faces Class Suit over Cop's Staged Suicide -------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that three men arrested in the investigation of a veteran police officer's death sued Fox Lake, Ill., claiming it had reason to know the officer's death was a suicide, not a murder. Officer Charles Joseph Gliniewicz of the Fox Lake Police Department was found dead on Sept. 1, 2015, in the woods along the village. Immediately before his death, Gliniewicz radioed dispatchers that he was in pursuit of three suspects at an abandoned cement plant, according to court records. When he was found shot with his own weapon, it was assumed that he was killed by one of the suspects. Early media reports blamed the "Black Lives Matter" movement and tied Gliniewicz's death to a "war on police." Thousands of people attended his funeral, and Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner ordered the state to fly flags at half mast in his honor. A massive manhunt with more than 400 police officers raked the woods near the lake, but searchers had no description of the purported murder suspects except Gliniewicz's claim that he was chasing two "male whites" and one "male black." Three men caught up in this sweep -- Raymond Willoughby, Damien Ward and Dan Cooper -- sued the Village of Fox Lake, Police Chief Michael Behan, and John Doe police officers for arresting them without probable cause. Their class-action complaint was filed on April 13, in Chicago federal court. Willoughby, Ward and Cooper were allegedly held up to 10 hours with no evidence tying them to the officer's death. The investigation ultimately revealed that Gliniewicz's death was a carefully staged suicide, as an audit was close to unearthing evidence he had been embezzling money from the police department's Explorer initiative, a program for mentoring young people interested in a law enforcement career, for at least seven years. "Unbeknownst to the plaintiffs or the public at large, there was good reason to suspect from the very outset that Gliniewicz's death was a suicide, and even the initial Fox Lake police department responders noted irregularities inconsistent with both that of a murder victim and what they professed to have understood of Gliniewicz's character," the lawsuit states. Hundreds of people were stopped, questioned, arrested or detained as part of the murder investigation, according to the complaint. The three plaintiffs claim then-Police Chief Michael Behan did not immediately tell investigators that Gliniewicz texted Behan hours before his death, complaining that the auditor was requesting a complete inventory and financial report of the Explorer program -- information which might have given investigators an early clue about his motive for killing himself. "In spite of such knowledge, the Fox Lake police department continued to perpetuate the narrative that Gliniewicz's death was a homicide, and continued to participate extensively in, and detain innocent citizens pursuant to, an investigation that they knew or had reason to know was pure fiction," the lawsuit continues. Willoughby, Ward and Cooper seek compensatory and punitive damages and are represented by Gregory E. Kulis in Chicago. The Fox Lake Police Department could not be reached for comment on April 14. FRONTIER SERVICES: "Moctezuma" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Wilber Moctezuma on behalf of himself individually, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Frontier Services Group LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01184 (S.D. Tex., April 16, 2017), seeks all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Frontier Services Group LLC are into in estimating and repairing water damage in Houston, Texas. Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as technicians. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Phone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com GERBER PRODUCTS: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Baby Food Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling and remanded action in the case captioned, NATALIA BRUTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 15-15174 (9th Cir.). Plaintiff-Appellant Natalia Bruton filed a putative class action against baby food manufacturer Gerber Products Company (Gerber). Bruton alleged that labels on certain Gerber baby food products included claims about nutrient and sugar content that were impermissible under Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations incorporated into California law. The district court dismissed several of Bruton's claims, denied class certification, denied partial summary judgment for Bruton, and granted summary judgment to Gerber. Bruton appeals, challenging the district court's orders contending that the district court erred (1) in dismissing Bruton's claim for unjust enrichment/quasi-contract; (2) when it held that the class could not be certified because it was not "ascertainable"; (3) in holding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact on Bruton's claims that the labels were deceptive in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and Prof. Code Section 17200, False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); and (4) in granting summary judgment to Gerber on Bruton's claims that the labels were unlawful under the UCL. In a Memorandum dated April 19, 2017 available at https://is.gd/FxvQDV from Leagle.com, the Ninth Circuit held that Bruton has submitted sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact over the reasonable consumer test and the FDA regulations include no requirement that the public be likely to experience deception. * * * Nick Mccann at Courthouse News reports the Ninth Circuit revived a proposed class action against Gerber, saying the mom who sued it for labeling its sugar-laden baby food as "all natural" only had to prove the labels were misleading, not necessarily false. "Even technically correct labels can be misleading," the panel wrote in an unpublished order on April 19, reversing and remanding U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh's dismissal. Natalia Bruton sued Gerber and Nestle in 2012, claiming they misbrand their food for babies and toddlers. She challenged the labels that describe the food as "excellent source," "good source," "as healthy as fresh," "no added sugar" and "natural." The products include a variety of snack foods that allegedly mislead consumers about being good sources of vitamins C and E, iron and zinc, and support "healthy growth and development." Koh dismissed Bruton's claims against Nestle in 2013 and denied class certification, with leave to amend. Bruton appealed, and on April 19 a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel reversed and remanded, with one judge dissenting in part and concurring in part. "Bruton's theory of deception does not rely on proving that any of Gerber's labels were false," the panel wrote, finding she had a viable claim for deception. "Rather, Bruton contends that the combination of (a) the presence of the claims on Gerber's products (in violation of FDA regulations), and (b) the lack of claims on competitors' products (in compliance with FDA regulations), made Gerber's labeling likely to mislead the public into believing that Gerber's products were of a higher quality than its competitors' products. "Doubtless, Bruton's theory of deception is unusual. But even technically correct labels can be misleading." If it is true that Gerber did not comply with FDA regulations that prevent its competitors from making claims like "as healthy as fresh," the labels' implications are misleading, the panel found. "Shoppers in a supermarket aisle look for cues about quality in the products they buy. If a shopper sees two products on a shelf and one says 'Supports Healthy Growth & Development,' while the other makes no similar claim and is cheaper, a likely inference is that the first product will be viewed as healthier, explaining why it costs more." Sitting on the panel were Ninth Circuit Judges Ronald M. Gould and Milan Smith, and Senior Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, who wrote a partial dissent. O'Scannlain took issue with the majority's conclusion that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by Gerber's labels. "There is nothing inherent in Gerber's labels that would support an inferential leap from factually correct nutritional statements to deceptive claims about product quality," O'Scannlain wrote. "This is especially so because both Gerber's and its competitors' labels included detailed information about their ingredients and nutritional contents." Despite the panel's ruling, a Gerber representative said the company expects the case will ultimately be dismissed. "The court acknowledged in its majority and dissenting opinions that there is no evidence that Gerber's statements on its labels were not truthful. Unfortunately, the district court, both in denying plaintiff's motion for class certification and granting Gerber's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment, relied on cases that appellate courts have since overruled and, thus, the Ninth Circuit had no choice but to return those issues in this case to the district court for further proceedings. We are confident that the district court will again rule in Gerber's favor," the Gerber representative said. GLOBAL CREDIT: Certification of "Halberstam" as Class Suit Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- Herschel Halberstam asks the Court to certify the action entitled HERSCHEL HALBERSTAM, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. GLOBAL CREDIT & COLLECTION CORP., Case No. 1:15-cv-05696-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), as a class action. Mr. Halberstam brought the lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. He alleges that the Defendant attempted to collect from him an alleged personal debt. He notes that the Court has already ruled in his favor on the issue of liability. The Defendant sought permission to appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied. A copy of the memorandum filed in support of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AE3Y2ZQc The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (516) 668-6945 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Judge Revives "Chen-Oster" Gender Bias Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that removing a hurdle that kept former Goldman Sachs employees from class certification in a gender bias suit, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled on April 12, that her predecessor misinterpreted Supreme Court precedent in the case alleging a "boy's club" at the megabank. U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres gave two women who used to work at Goldman Sachs the green light to pursue an injunction to repair the bank's allegedly sexist culture under Title VII. "Justice was served today," their attorney Adam Klein, from the firm Outten & Golden, said in a phone interview. Cristina Chen-Oster and four other women have been waiting seven years for their claims against Goldman Sachs to reach this stage. Filed in 2010, the lawsuit accused the bank's managers of sexual assault and hiring female escorts "wearing short black skirts, strapless tops, and Santa hats" for a holiday party. Two of the plaintiffs -- Allison Gamba and Mary De Lius -- stumbled in getting their claims off the ground in the courtroom of the late U.S. District Judge Leonard Sand, who found that the Supreme Court's controversial ruling in Walmart v. Dukes denied standing to the women. Before he died late last year, Sand expressed "significant reservations" with the Supreme Court's ruling in Wal-Mart, though he found that precedent tied his hands in the Goldman Sachs case. Replacing Sand in the case, Judge Torres said that her predecessor read the Wal-Mart case "too broadly." Goldman Sachs spokeswoman Leslie Shribman said in a statement, "We are examining the implications of the latest ruling, and we'll continue to contest this matter vigorously." The case is captioned, Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs, Inc., Case No. 10-06950 (S.D.N.Y.). GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Class Action Settlement Awaits Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gramercy Property Trust said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the court has not yet entered a final judgment approving the settlement of a class action lawsuit. The Company said, "We were formed as a Maryland REIT in March 2004. In December 2015, we completed a merger (the "Merger") of Gramercy Property Trust Inc. ("Legacy Gramercy") into Chambers Street Properties ("Chambers"), with Chambers as the surviving entity. Following the Merger, we changed our name to "Gramercy Property Trust" and our New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") trading symbol to "GPT."" "Legacy Gramercy, its board of directors, Chambers and/or Merger Sub, a subsidiary of Chambers, were named as defendants in two pending putative class action lawsuits brought by purported Legacy Gramercy stockholders challenging the Merger. Two suits that were separately filed in New York Supreme Court, New York County, captioned (i) Berliner v. Gramercy Property Trust, et al., Index No. 652424/2015 (filed July 9, 2015) and (ii) Gensler v. Baum, et al., Index No. 157432/2015 (filed July 22, 2015), have been consolidated into a single action under the caption In re Gramercy Property Trust Stockholder Litigation, Index No. 652424/2015 (the "New York Action"). "In addition, four suits that were separately filed in Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned (i) Jobin v. DuGan, et al., Case No. 24C15003942 (filed July 27, 2015); (ii) Vojik v. Gramercy Property Trust, et al., Case No. 24C15004412 (filed August 25, 2015)? (iii) Hoffbauer et al. v. Chambers Street Properties, et al., 24C15004904 (filed September 24, 2015) (originally filed as two separate suits in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, captioned Plemons v. Chambers Street Properties, et al., Case No. 03C15007943 (filed July 24, 2015) and Hoffbauer et al. v. Chambers Street Properties, et al., Case No. 03C15008639 (filed August 12, 2015), and refiled as a single action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on September 24, 2015)? and (iv) Morris v. Gramercy Property Trust, et al., Case No. 24C15004972 (filed September 28, 2015) have been consolidated into a single action under the caption Glenn W. Morris v. Gramercy Property Trust Inc. et al., Case No. 24C15004972 (the "Maryland Action," and together with the New York Action, the "Actions"). "The complaints allege, among other things, that the directors of Legacy Gramercy breached their fiduciary duties to Legacy Gramercy stockholders by agreeing to sell the Company for inadequate consideration and agreeing to improper deal protection terms in the merger agreement, and that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on Form S4 on September 11, 2015 was materially incomplete and misleading. The complaints also allege that Chambers, Merger Sub and/or Legacy Gramercy aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint in the Morris consolidated action also asserts derivative claims on behalf of Legacy Gramercy for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors of Legacy Gramercy. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction barring the Merger, rescission of the Merger to the extent it is already implemented, declaratory relief, an award of damages and/or costs/attorney fees. "On December 7, 2015, the parties to the Actions entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"), which provides for the settlement of the Actions. While the defendants in the Actions continue to vigorously deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage to any of the plaintiffs or the class of stockholders of Legacy Gramercy, and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under the applicable law, in order to (i) avoid the burden, inconvenience, expense and distraction of further litigation in connection with the Actions, (ii) finally put to rest and terminate all of the claims that were or could have been asserted against the defendants in the Actions and (iii) permit the Merger to proceed without risk of the courts in New York or Maryland ordering an injunction or damages in connection with the Actions, Chambers and Legacy Gramercy agreed, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the Merger, which were set forth in Legacy Gramercy's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on December 7, 2015. "Pursuant to the MOU, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement is subject to customary conditions, including, among other things, court approval following notice to Legacy Gramercy stockholders. On November 2, 2016, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. "On February 1, 2017 the court held a hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement, and expressed an intent to grant final approval. However, the court has not yet entered a final judgment approving the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims by stockholders in the Actions of Legacy Gramercy challenging the Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be set forth in the notice sent to Legacy Gramercy stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Gramercy or its successor. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement. In the event that the settlement is not approved or that the conditions are not satisfied, the settlement may be terminated." Gramercy Property Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust ("REIT"), is a global investor and asset manager of commercial real estate. GULFSTREAM PARK: "Gonzalez" Files Lawsuit Over 'Tip-Credit' ----------------------------------------------------------- SANTIAGO GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, vs. GULFSTREAM PARK RACING ASSOCIATION, INC. d/b/a GULFSTREAM PARK RACING AND CASINO, a Florida profit corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60722-JIC (S.D. Fla., April 13, 2017), alleges on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, that during the employment of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, the Defendant illegally claimed a 'tip-credit' for the Plaintiff and others similarly situated, and paid those employees below the statutorily required minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, were poker dealers at the Defendant's casino.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq. David Frank, Esq. WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (954) 463-2001 Fax: (954) 463-0410 E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com davidfrank@whitelocklegal.com GURSTEL CHARGO: Wins Summary Judgment in Debt-Collection Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge David S. Dotty of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted defendant Gurstel Chargo P.A.'s motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, Troy K. Scheffler, Plaintiff, v. Gurstel Chargo, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 15-4436(DSD/SER) (D. Minn.). The debt-collection dispute arises out of plaintiff Troy Scheffler's acknowledged credit card debt in the amount of $9,896.90 owed to Discover Bank. Scheffler is a former debt collector who has filed many lawsuits in the district alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA). On July 31, 2009, Gurstel secured a judgment against Scheffler on Discover's behalf. On November 20, 2015, Scheffler commenced the putative class action in Hennepin County District Court, alleging that Gurstel's letter and his conversation with Salter violated the FDCPA. Gurstel timely removed to the court. On March 1, 2017, Scheffler filed a second amended complaint alleging violations of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692c(c) & 1692e(10). Gurstel moves for summary judgment. In his Order dated April 19, 2017 available at https://is.gd/ImoBYg from Leagle.com, Judge Dotty held that Gurstel is entitled to summary judgment because the mere fact that the letter states at the bottom that it 'is an attempt to collect a debt' does not transform the letter into an unlawful demand for payment and that Gurstel did not violate the FDCPA by sending the garnishment notice. Troy K. Scheffler is represented by Peter J. Nickitas, Esq. -- peterjnickitaslawllc@gmail.com -- PETER J. NICKITAS LAW FIRM, LLC Gurstel Chargo, P.A. is represented by Amy M. Goltz, Esq. -- a.goltz@gurstel.com -- GURSTEL CHARGO, PA -- Manuel H. Newburger, Esq. -- Mnewburger@bn-lawyers.com -- BARRON & NEWBURGER PC HIGHER ONE: Faces Class Action Over Fees on Student Debit Cards --------------------------------------------------------------- Lowell Neumann Nickey at Courthouse News reports saying that federal sanctions failed to change its unscrupulous practices, a Pennsylvania woman slapped Higher One Holdings with a federal class action over the fees it charges on student debit cards. Higher One is not a bank, but the April 13 complaint notes that the organization has arrangements with colleges across the country to store any unused financial aid that the schools must refund to students. Though students can opt out of using so-called OneAccounts, most don't. Lead plaintiff Shaya Edelman says she was one of the 80 percent of vulnerable students whom Higher One plied into opening a co- branded debit card. Though the account gave her immediate access to her funds, Edelman says she faced "unconscionable and unusual bank fees" as a result. Other options like direct deposit and paper check would take up to one week and 21 days to clear, respectively. "Based on information and belief, the fees assessed to plaintiff Edelman are representative of millions of dollars of fees that defendants wrongfully assessed and deducted from student customers' accounts," the complaint states. A resident of King of Prussia, Edelman says Higher One and its banking partners have been under fire by financial industry authorities for years. The complaint describes a USD15 million settlement that Higher One reached with two others in 2014, compensating students who opened accounts between 2006 and 2012. Higher One committed another USD31 million in restitution the following year, Edelman notes, as part of a consent order after the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission nailed it for misleading students enrolled in OneAccounts. Also in December 2015, according to the complaint, Higher One faced a cease-and-desist order and USD24 million penalty from the Federal Reserve. "Despite the penalties it had received, and its promises to change its behavior, Higher One continued to profit from deceptive practices and improper fees," the complaint states. Edelman signed up for a Mustang Card while enrolled at Montgomery County Community College. "Targeting students with excessive bank fees -- and using scarce financial aid funds (much of which is taxpayer money) to pay those fees -- is unethical, contrary to public policy, and makes it more difficult for students to avoid crippling debt." Edelman says the unconscionable bank fees that Higher One charges are "often at 7 percent interest or higher." These kinds of fees "are rarely, if ever, charged by other banks" with similar checking services. "Many students receiving grant and financial aid are low-income, with a disproportionately higher level of need than the general student body," the complaint continues. Edelman seeks punitive damages and rescission, alleging unjust enrichment, conversion and violation of Pennsylvania consumer- protection law. She is represented by Charles Schaffer with Levin, Sedran & Berman. In addition to Higher One, the class action names as a defendant its banking partner WEX Bank and Customers Bancorp, which Edelman says acquired the OneAccounts business last year. The defendants did not return a request for comment. HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES: Gorbatchev Sues Over Nexus 6P Bootloop ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal class action in Sherman, Texas against Google and Huawei Technologies claims that Google Nexus 6P smartphones have a bootloop defect that makes them inert while the battery drains. The case is captioned, ALEX GORBATCHEV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC. and GOOGLE, INC., Defendants, Case 4:17-cv- 00260 (E.D. Tex., April 14, 2017). Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Cory S. Fein, Esq. Cory Fein Law Firm 712 Main St., #800 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (281) 254-7717 Facsimile: (530) 748-0601 E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Jessica L. Titler, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP One Haverford Centre 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: (610) 642-8500 Fax: (610) 649-3633 Email: bfj@chimicles.com Email: awf@chimicles.com Email: jlt@chimicles.com David Karavets at Ars Technica reports that it seems like makers of flagship Android devices can't get it right these days. We recently reported on an ever-expanding class-action lawsuit targeting LG's flagships: the G4, G5, V10, V20, and Nexus 5X. Those phones, according to the suit and thousands of online complaints by users, have a legendary bootloop issue caused by shoddy construction that bricks the phones or slows them to a crawl. Now the Nexus 6P phablet, unveiled in September 2015 for pre- order, is also being accused in a class-action lawsuit of having a "Bootloop Defect." According to the suit, the Nexus 6P devices "are defective because they are prone to enter an endless bootloop cycle which renders them unresponsive and unusable." What's more, the suit also alleges a "Battery Drain Defect," which has also been the subject of repeated online criticism by unhappy Nexus 6P consumers. "As the numerous complaints posted on product reviews, blogs and other consumer resources reveal, countless consumers have experienced this Defect," according to the suit. The lawsuit mocks one of the advertisements about the device that claimed: "Battery life keeps you going all day and into the night." Phone fraud? The suit, which seeks class-action status, names hardware maker Huawei Device USA of Texas and software maker Google of California. The lawsuit says the defects materialize both before and after the warranty period. Sometimes the warranty is not honored, and when it is honored, "consumers have had to wait several days or weeks to receive an accommodation, which often ends up being a refurbished Phone that suffers from the same Defect," according to the suit. The Northern California federal lawsuit claims breach of warranty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of numerous federal and state consumer laws. It seeks unspecified damages proven at trial to compensate consumers nationwide for a device that retailed from USD499 to USD649. "When the bootlooping occurs, the phone is essentially a very expensive paperweight," the suit says. The suit claims that neither Google nor Huawei has publicly acknowledged the alleged defects, and they have "no intention of universally remedying these problems, as Defendants routinely declined to repair defective Phones." Google did not immediately respond for comment. Huawei declined comment. No trial date has been set at this time. HUNGARY: Star Seeks Certification of Holocaust Victims Class ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Joe W. Star, Stephan Istvan Bass, Edith Reich Alexander, Judith Varnai Aronson, Iren Schwarz Gati, Ani Brieger, Gizella Frischman Barabas and Mary Keller Wexler, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Republic of Hungary, Case No. 1:16-cv-05709 (N.D. Ill.), file a placeholder motion for the certification of this class: All survivors, heirs, and next of kin, of persons of Jewish descent who were the victims of the Hungarian Holocaust, and who (a) reside in the United States, or (b) are U.S. citizens residing abroad. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the class action for compensation for victims, survivors, heirs, and next of kin of Hungarian Jews, who were deprived of their property and possessions as a result of the Holocaust conducted by the Republic of Hungary during World War II. They also ask the Court to designate the Named Plaintiffs as the Class representatives and their counsel as Class counsel. * * * In a minute entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., the Court ruled that the Plaintiffs' previous motion is stricken as it is replaced by their placeholder motion for class certification. The latter motion is entered and continued generally. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=K5eFzwKM A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4EDeBWOo The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony D'amato, Esq. 5807 Lake Shore Drive Holland, MI 49424 Telephone: (616) 399-6344 E-mail: a-damato@northwestern.edu HUNTINGTON, IN: Hale Moves to Certify Indigent Prisoners Class -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled THOMAS HALE and JUSTIN WALLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TERRY STOFFEL, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:17-cv-00108 (N.D. Ind.), ask the Court to certify a proposed class: All indigent individuals incarcerated in the Huntington County Jail who seek to bring nonfrivolous civil rights or habeas corpus claims, are not represented by counsel for those claims, and are prevented from bringing those claims in court or have had their claims dismissed due to lack of access to a law library, legal research materials, or professional legal assistance. Defendant Terry Stoffel, sheriff of Huntington County and operator of the Huntington County Jail, has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Class through his denial access to the courts in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Indiana State Constitution, the Plaintiffs allege. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qGKsrvEX The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Frank, Esq. Christopher C. Myers, Esq. CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES 809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400 Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307 Telephone: (260) 424-0600 Facsimile: (260) 424-0712 E-mail: dfrank@myers-law.com cmyers@myers-law.com ILG INC: Suit over Fractional Offering Plan Pending --------------------------------------------------- ILG, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit related to fractional offering plan, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said, "On December 5, 2016, individuals and entities who own or owned 107 fractional interests of a total of 372 interests created in the Fifth and Fifty-Fifth Residence Club located within The St. Regis, New York filed suit against us, certain of our subsidiaries, Marriott International Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries including Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide LLC. The case is filed as a mass action in federal court in the Southern District of New York, not as a class action." "The plaintiffs principally challenge the sale of less than all interests offered in the fractional offering plan, the amendment of the plan to include additional units, the failure to amend the plan to provide for certain alleged changes, and the rental of unsold fractional interests by the plan's sponsor, claiming that alleged acts by us and the other defendants breached or undermined the relevant agreements and harmed the value of plaintiffs' fractional interests. The relief sought includes, among other things, compensatory damages, rescission, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. "In response to our request to file a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs have agreed to amend their complaint on or before March 6, 2017. "We will determine at that time whether to request permission to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. We dispute the material allegations in the complaint and intend to defend against the action vigorously. Given the early stages of the action and the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot estimate a range of the potential liability, if any, at this time." ILG, Inc. is a provider of professionally delivered vacation experiences and the exclusive global licensee for the Hyatt(R), Westin(R) and Sheraton(R) brands in vacation ownership. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Court Dismisses Stockholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports Integra Lifesciences Holdings Corp says court dismissed stockholder class action lawsuit in relation to derm deal; Integra to pay plaintiffs' counsel USD225,000. INTELEOS INC: Faces Suit over Sonography Exam Scores ---------------------------------------------------- Brian Grosh, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that two healthcare workers who make their living performing diagnostic ultrasounds claim in a federal class action in Cleveland, Ohio, that the organization that awards their professional credentials incorrectly reported that they failed their sonography certification exams. Lead plaintiffs Stephanie Miller and Mary Alyce Dawson sued Inteleos Inc. -- the organization that governs and manages the American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, or ARDMS -- in Cleveland federal court, seeking damages for lost wages, lost job opportunities and harm to their professional reputations. Sonography is a medical imaging technique that uses echoes of high-frequency sound waves to build an image of organs and other body structures. Like many sonographers, Miller and Dawson were required by their employers to take and pass the sonography certification examination administered by ARDMS to demonstrate their competency. Both Miller and Dawson passed the exam, but they claim ARDMS scored their tests incorrectly and falsely reported that they had failed. As a result, Miller and Dawson were taken off of their respective work schedules and forced to wait 60 days before they could retake the exam, according to their lawsuit. ARDMS recently acknowledged it had experienced a system-wide internal error in the calculation of its exam scores, the lawsuit states. That internal error allegedly resulted in the false reporting of failing scores for sonographers who took the exam between Sept. 6, 2016 and March 14 of this year. "Plaintiffs and class members paid a $250 fee to defendant in exchange for defendant's proper administration and accurate scoring of the exam. Plaintiffs and class members suffered the loss of this fee because they paid for an exam that was improperly scored, and their exam results were inaccurately reported," the complaint states. "Indeed, because plaintiff Dawson and other class members falsely believed that they had failed the exam, they paid another $250 fee to defendant in order to re-take the exam, even though they had already passed the exam and received no benefit from re-taking the exam." (Emphasis in original.) Miller and Dawson seek to represent all sonographers throughout the United States impacted by ARDMS' actions. They are represented by former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann of the Cleveland-based Dann Law Firm, and by Thomas Zimmerman Jr. of the Chicago-based Zimmerman Law Firm. "Because it denotes a lack of competency, knowledge and expertise in sonography, there is a serious stigma associated with failure to pass the credentialing examination," Zimmerman said in a press release on Dann Law Firm's website. Miller and Dawson allege breach of contract, negligence, unjust enrichment and violations of the the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act and Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act. They say the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million. ARDMS did not immediately respond to a phone call requesting comment on the lawsuit. The case is captioned, STEPHANIE MILLER 6403 Summers Road Windsor, Ohio 44099 and MARY ALYCE DAWSON 1183 East 347th Street Eastlake, Ohio 44095, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTELEOS, INC., an Ohio corporation, f/k/a the AMERICAN REGISTRY OF DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL SONOGRAPHY, INC. 1401 Rockville Pike, Suite 600 Rockville, Maryland 20852, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00763 (N.D. Ohio, April 10, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class: Marc E. Dann, Esq. William C. Behrens, Esq. The Dann Law Firm Co., LPA P.O. Box. 6031040 Cleveland, Ohio 44103 Tel: (216) 373-0539 Fax: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Zimmerman Law Offices, PC 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Tel: (312) 440-0020 Fax: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com INTREXON CORPORATION: Wins Dismissal of Shareholder Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Intrexon Corporation's motion to dismiss a consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit has been granted, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said, "In May 2016, two putative shareholder class action lawsuits, captioned Hoffman v. Intrexon Corporation et al. and Gibrall v. Intrexon Corporation et al., were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between May 12, 2015 and April 20, 2016, or the Class Period." "In July 2016, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants us and certain of our current and former officers, or the Defendants. It alleges, among other things, that the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements during the Class Period with respect to our business, operations, and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs' claims are based in part upon allegations in a report published in April 2016 on the Seeking Alpha financial blog. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, interest and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants moved to dismiss the case. On February 24, 2017, the court granted our motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that plaintiff failed to state a claim, while granting plaintiff leave to amend. Any such amended complaint must be filed by the plaintiff within 30 days. "We intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this case." Interexon is a leader in the field of synthetic biology, an emerging and rapidly evolving discipline that applies engineering principles to biological systems to enable rational, design-based control of cellular function for a specific purpose. IXIA: Court Approves Settlement Fund Distribution ------------------------------------------------- IXIA said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Court has approved the distribution of the settlement fund to class members who had submitted claims. The Company said, "On August 1, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the "Court") entered an order granting final approval of a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated November 11, 2015, providing for the settlement of the securities class action, captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, et al. v. Ixia, et al., filed in November 2013 against the Company and certain of our current and former officers and directors (the "Class Action Settlement Agreement"). The Class Action Settlement Agreement provides, among other terms, for a settlement payment in the amount of $3.5 million." "In March 2016, one of our insurance carriers made the settlement payment, which will fund all payments to class members pursuant to the Class Action Settlement Agreement and the award of attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel as approved by the Court. The settlement does not include any admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of Ixia or the individual defendants and provides for a dismissal of, and a release of all claims asserted against the defendants in, the class action. By an amended order, dated February 21, 2017, the Court approved the distribution of the settlement fund to class members who had submitted claims." Ixia was incorporated in 1997 as a California corporation. Ixia helps customers validate the performance and security resilience of their applications and networks. JS SEPTIC SERVICES: "Ruiz" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Javier Ruiz, on behalf of himself individually, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J.S. Septic Services Corp., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01186 (S.D. Tex., April 16, 2017), seeks all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, post- judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is a septic services company where Javier Ruiz worked as a driver. He claims to have regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime premium. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Phone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Juno Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit remains pending. The Company said, "Beginning on July 12, 2016, three putative securities class action complaints were filed against Juno and several of our officers. On October 7, 2016, these complaints were consolidated by the federal district court for the Western District of Washington into a single action titled "In re Juno Therapeutics, Inc." On October 19, 2016, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. On December 12, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint." "The putative class in the amended complaint is composed of all purchasers of Juno's securities between May 9, 2016 and November 22, 2016, inclusive. The amended complaint names as defendants Juno, our chief executive officer, our chief financial officer, and our chief medical officer and generally alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding patient deaths in Juno's Phase II clinical trial of JCAR015 and the safety of JCAR015, violations by all named defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual defendants. The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount. "On February 2, 2017, Juno and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. We have not recorded any liability as of December 31, 2016 since any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable given the preliminary nature of the proceedings." KEENWAWA INC: American Council of the Blind Asserts ADA Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- American Council of the Blind on behalf of itself, its members and others similarly situated and Michael Godino, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Keenwawa, Inc., d/b/a Eatsa, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02096-JGK (S.D. N.Y., March 23, 2017) seeks an order requiring that Defendant takes the necessary steps to ensure that the food ordering and delivery systems within Eatsa restaurants must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The Complaint states that the Defendant has a common policy and practice of denying blind person access to the services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations they provide at their restaurants and via Eatsa's self-service technology since all ordering and food-delivery systems have a common design that is inaccessible to blind persons. Further, due to Defendant's policies and practices of failing to remove access barriers, blind persons have been and are being denied full and equal access to the services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodation of Defendant's mobile application and its restaurants in New York City. Keenwawa Inc. d/b/a Eatsa operates a chain of fast-casual restaurant in New York City, California and Washington, DC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michelle Caiola, Esq. Rebecca C. Serbin, Esq. Disability Rights Advocates 675 Third Avenue, Suite 2216 New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 644-8644 Fax: (212) 644-8636 KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: 4 Class Suits Pending ----------------------------------------------- Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is defending four class action lawsuits, Keryx said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The company said, "Four purported class action lawsuits have been filed against us and certain of our current and former officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur and James Oliviero). Three of these actions have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned respectively Terrell Jackson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-06131 filed on August 2, 2016, Richard J. Erickson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 1:16-cv-06218, filed on August 4, 2016 and Richard King v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16- cv-06233 on August 5, 2016." "The Jackson complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our common stock between February 25, 2016 and August 1, 2016, the Erickson complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our common stock between March 2, 2016 and July 29, 2016, and the King complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our stock between February 25, 2016 and July 29, 2016. "On August 26, 2016, the fourth complaint, captioned Tim Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-11745, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which complaint was subsequently amended. The Karth complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016. Each complaint generally alleges that we and certain of our current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the Company and its business operations and future prospects in light of the August 1, 2016 announcement of an imminent interruption in our supply of Auryxia. "Two stockholder derivative complaints were also filed on December 16, 2016 against the Company and certain of its current and former officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur and James Oliviero), certain of its current directors (Kevin J. Cameron, Daniel P. Regan, Steven C. Gilman, Michael Rogers and John P. Butler) and its former directors (Michael P. Tarnok, Joseph Feczko, Jack Kaye and Wyche Fowler, Jr.), in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, one captioned Venkat Vara Prasad Malledi v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 16-3865 and one captioned James Anderson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 16-3866. "Each of these two complaints generally allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company, unjustly enriched themselves by their actions, abused their control positions with the Company, mismanaged the Company and wasted corporate assets since July 31, 2013 in light of the August 1, 2016 announcement by the Company of an interruption in the supply of the Company's product Auryxia. All of the complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. "We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. There is no assurance, however, that we or the other defendants will be successful in our defense of either of these lawsuits or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of these actions. Moreover, we are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible losses at this time. A resolution of these lawsuits adverse to us or the other defendants, however, could have a material effect on our financial position and results of operations in the period in which the particular lawsuit is resolved." Keryx is a commercial stage biopharmaceutical company focused on bringing innovative medicines to people with renal disease. LA QUINTA: Bid to Dismiss Amended "Beisel" Complaint Challenged --------------------------------------------------------------- La Quinta Holdings Inc. continues to defend against the amended complaint in the "Beisel" class action lawsuit, La Quinta said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit on March 31, 2017, filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On April 25, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned Beisel v. La Quinta Holdings Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant to the Company's March 24, 2015 secondary public offering (the "March Secondary Offering") and on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from November 19, 2014 through October 29, 2015 (the "Class Period"). On July 22, 2016, the court appointed lead plaintiff, and on September 30, 2016, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, certain current and former Company officers, and certain current and former members of the board of directors, among others. The complaint alleges, among other things, that, in violation of the federal securities laws, the registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the March Secondary Offering contained materially false and misleading information or omissions and that the Company as well as certain current and former officers made false and misleading statements in earnings releases and to analysts during the Class Period. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company believes that the putative class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit. LINCOLN DELI: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Francisco Dorantes Reyes, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lincoln Deli Grocery Corp., 2159 Deli Grocery Corp., Sadek Salem and Mehari Equbeslasie, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02732 (S.D. N.Y., April 14, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of- hours premium, applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Laws. Lincoln Deli Grocery Corp. operates Lincoln Deli-Grocery, a grocery/deli owned by Sadek Salem and Mehari Equbeslasie, located at 2159 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, 10037, where Dorantes worked long days as a grillman and sandwich preparer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 LOUISIANA, USA: Wheat Moves to Certify Two Classes of Arrestees --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JAMES M. WHEAT and DANNY BRINSON, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. MIKE CRAIG, JEFF R. THOMPSON, JEFF COX, E. CHARLES JACOBS, MIKE NERREN, and PARKER SELF in their official capacities as Judges of the 26th Judicial District Court; and JULIAN C. WHITTINGTON, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Bossier Parish, Case No. 5:17-cv-00424-SMH-MLH (W.D. La.), move the Court for an order certifying the action as a class action and to certify declaratory and injunctive Plaintiff classes consisting of: (A) all arrestees unable to pay for their release pursuant to Defendants' fixed bail schedule who are currently in the custody of Defendant Whittington; and (B) all arrestees unable to afford payment of the $40 Public Defender Application fee on which their release has been conditioned by en banc order of the 26th Judicial District Court. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint their counsel as class counsel. They further ask the Court to schedule a hearing on the matter. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GwYW2W62 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric Foley, Esq. Katie M. Schwartzmann, Esq. RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 4400 S. Carrollton Ave. New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 620-2259 Facsimile: (504) 208-3133 E-mail: eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org katie.schwartzmann@macarthurjustice.org LUMENIS INC: Gillespie, et al. Sue Under FLSA, State Labor Laws --------------------------------------------------------------- COOPER GILLESPIE, LEIGHTON WYNTER, CHRISTOPHER CASTLE, MICHAEL CONWAY, WILLIAM SEAN DUNEGAN, SKYLAR FISK, JEFF FOLZ, RANDY HILL, AND DENNIS WALSH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. LUMENIS INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02080-EDL (N.D. Cal., April 13, 2017), alleges that Defendant misclassified Plaintiffs and the Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Class as exempt from overtime and thus failed to pay them overtime as required by federal law. Plaintiff Gillespie also brings individual claims under California law extending back four years prior to this action's filing date through the trial of this action for Defendant's failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to authorize and provide available meal and rest breaks, and failure to provide premium pay for missed meal and rest breaks. Plaintiff Wynter brings claims against Defendant under New York law extending back as much as six years prior to this action's filing date through the trial of this action for Defendant's failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to pay spread of hours pay, failure to pay wages when due, failure to comply with notice and record-keeping requirements, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. According to its website, Lumenis Inc. is "a global leader in the field of minimally invasive clinical solutions for the Surgical, Ophthalmology and Aesthetic markets," and develops and commercializes "innovative energy-based technologies, including Laser, Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) and Radio-Frequency (RF)." Plaintiffs and the putative class members are or were employed by Defendant Lumenis Inc., as customer service engineers, field service engineers, and other job titles performing similar duties and were denied proper compensation as required by federal and state wage and hour laws.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Schwartz, Esq. Rachel Terp, Esq. BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW 1330 Broadway, Suite 1630 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 444-9300 Fax: (510) 444-9301 Email: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com rachel@bryanschwartzlaw.com M&C GLOBAL: Faces "Gomes" Suit in Tex. Alleging FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL GOMES and SEBASTIAN BRADFORD, Individually and On Behalf Of All Similarly Situated Persons Plaintiffs, V. M&C GLOBAL, INC. and PAUL BACHET, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-cv-1141 (S.D. Tex., April 13, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs and those employees similarly situated to Plaintiffs were paid on an hourly basis and were paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked, even those hours over 40 in a workweek. The Defendants placed the Employees to work at various automobile dealers in the Houston area, and possibly other geographic areas. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an auto dealership porter, says the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Phone: 713-868-3388 Fax: 713-683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com - and - Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Phone: 713-868-3388 Fax: 713-683-9940 E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com MDL 2420: Class Certification Bid Denied ---------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif., on April 13, denied certification to two proposed classes of plaintiffs in a sprawling antitrust case accusing electronics firms of fixing the prices of lithium ion batteries for more than a decade. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied without prejudice motions by both indirect and direct purchasers of the batteries, finding that both failed to show that the entire class had been affected by the alleged price-fixing. The batteries are found in everyday gadgets from smartphones and laptops to power tools. Though both proposed classes may file new motions for certification, Gonzalez Rogers particularly encouraged the indirect purchasers to refile. She said a renewed motion could succeed if it dropped allegations of nationwide claims under California's Cartwright Act. The indirect purchasers sought to bring nationwide claims under the California law because they said the defendants, which include Panasonic, Samsung and Toshiba, maintain headquarters in the state and chose California law as the framework for their battery contracts. However, "The court finds that a nationwide class under the Cartwright Act would not be appropriate," Gonzalez Rogers wrote. "Any renewed motion for class certification should take this determination into account." The multidistrict lawsuit, which was transferred to the Northern District of California in 2013, accuses the defendants of restricting output and collectively raising prices between 2000 and 2011. When the global financial crisis hit in 2008 and demand for the batteries plummeted, prices nonetheless stayed constant due to the conspiracy, they say. In denying the indirect purchasers certification on April 13, Gonzalez Rogers zeroed in on Edward Leamer's expert testimony, which she said failed to show that "pass-through and damages can be established by expert analysis on a class-wide basis." To establish class-wide impact for indirect purchasers, plaintiffs must show there is a method for proving whether the effects of an overcharge were passed on to each indirect purchaser, and how much the overcharge affected them. Gonzalez Rogers said that while Leamer's analysis found a statistically significant pass-through rate of nearly 100 percent, it was unclear whether the analysis included different types of class members and battery products. "The court is not satisfied that plaintiffs or their experts have explained how the pass-through analysis here demonstrates the antitrust impact is 'passed on' to each level of the indirect purchasers in the distribution chain," the judge wrote. Indirect purchaser attorney Jeff Friedman said in an email Thursday that his clients intend to file a renewed motion for certification. "We appreciate the detailed and thoughtful ruling by the court and the time put into the findings," he said. "The analysis provides a straightforward path to addressing the court's issues and we look forward to doing so." Gonzalez Rogers similarly focused on expert testimony in denying direct purchasers class certification, finding that the analysis of their expert, Roger Noll, did not satisfy predominance requirements because it included data only for Toshiba laptops. "The analysis of the Toshiba laptops alone does not satisfy the court that a showing of antitrust impact for that product can be extrapolated as a measure of impact for the rest of the cells, batteries and finished products in the class definition," Gonzalez Rogers wrote. "The court ? cannot ignore the large gaps in the evidence supporting the ability to demonstrate impact and damages on a class-wide basis." The indirect purchasers sought to certify a class of all individuals and entities in the United States who indirectly purchased laptops, camcorders or power tools containing a cylindrical lithium ion battery, or a replacement battery, made by the defendants between Jan. 1, 2000 and May 31, 2011. The direct purchasers sought to certify a class of all individuals and entities that purchased a cylindrical or prismatic lithium ion battery cell or battery, or a product containing a battery cell, directly from defendants located in the United States between May 1, 2002 and May 31, 2011. In a separate but related order on April 13, Gonzalez Rogers denied a motion by Hitachi, LG Chem, Samsung and others to dismiss TracFone's 2015 antitrust claim under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for being time-barred. Gonzalez Rogers said TracFone's allegations that the defendants had hidden their price-fixing scheme were sufficient to state a claim under the Florida statute that is not time-barred. The indirect purchasers are represented by Jeff Friedman with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Berkeley. The direct purchasers are represented by Rick Saveri with Saveri & Saveri in San Francisco. Neither attorney could be reached for comment late on April 13. The case is captioned, IN RE: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, This Order Relates to: All Indirect Purchaser and Direct Purchaser Actions, Case No. 13-MD-2420 YGR (N.D. Cal.) METLIFE INC: Westland Police Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------ MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendents continue to defend against the case, City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012). Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint alleging that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: Settlement of Birmingham Suit Awaits Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the settlement of the case, City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama, filed July 5, 2012), is awaiting final court approval. Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife, Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several provisions of the Securities Act related to the filing of the registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On December 7, 2016, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, under which MetLife, Inc. agreed to pay $9.75 million, and conditionally certifying a settlement class. METLIFE INC: "Owens" Class Suit Underway ---------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendents continue to defend against the case captioned, Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014). Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons for whom MLIC established a retained asset account, known as a TCA, to pay death benefits under an ERISA plan. The action alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA. As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the putative class. On September 27, 2016, the court denied MLIC's summary judgment motion in full and granted plaintiff's partial summary judgment motion. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: Dismissal of "Robainas" Suit Affirmed -------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a decision dismissing the case captioned, Robainas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014). Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance policies issued by MLIC from 2009 through 2014 (the "Policies"). Two similar actions were subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015) and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15 v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015). Both of these actions were consolidated with the Robainas action. The consolidated complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit sought recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for the Policies. On October 9, 2015, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, finding that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they did not allege any concrete injury as a result of the alleged conduct. On February 23, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. METLIFE INC: Dismissal of "Intoccia" Suit Affirmed -------------------------------------------------- The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a decision dismissing the case captioned, Intoccia v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015), MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to variable annuity contracts with MLIC from 2009 through 2015 (the "Annuities"). The court consolidated Weilert v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015) with the Intoccia case, and the consolidated, amended complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuits seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to the Annuities. The Court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss, adopting the reasoning of the Robainas decision. On February 23, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. METLIFE INC: MLIC Paid Settlement Funds in "Fauley" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Settlement funds have been paid out in the case, Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. (Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill., July 3, 2014), MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On September 28, 2016, the Illinois Supreme Court denied an objector's petition for leave to appeal from an order approving MLIC's $23 million settlement of a class action alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. MLIC paid out the settlement funds in January 2017. METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Class Suit Remains Pending in California --------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendents continue to defend against the case, Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015) Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by including cost of living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business & Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Martin" Suit Underway --------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs' appeal on the dismissal of the case, Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015), remains pending, MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all California persons who have been charged compound interest by MLIC in life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last four years. Plaintiffs allege that MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes an unlawful business practice under California law. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified amount. On April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of this ruling. METLIFE INC: "Lau" Class Action Remains Pending in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendents continue to defend against the case, Lau v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y. filed, December 3, 2015). This putative class action lawsuit was filed by a single defined contribution plan participant on behalf of all ERISA plans whose assets were invested in MetLife's "Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds" within the past six years. The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA and challenges the "spread" with respect to the stable value fund group annuity products sold to retirement plans. The allegations focus on the methodology MetLife uses to establish and reset the crediting rate, the terms under which plan participants are permitted to transfer funds from a stable value option to another investment option, the procedures followed if an employer terminates a contract, and the level of disclosure provided. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages in an unspecified amount. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: "Newman" Class Suit Underway in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendents continue to defend against the case, Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23, 2016). Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, based on MLIC's class-wide increase in premiums charged for long- term care insurance policies. Plaintiff alleges a class consisting of herself and all persons over age 65 who selected a Reduced Pay at Age 65 payment feature and whose premium rates were increased after age 65. Plaintiff asserts that premiums could not be increased for these class members and/or that marketing material was misleading as to MLIC's right to increase premiums. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive damages as well as recessionary and injunctive relief. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. MOVAGE INC: "Williams" Seeks Pay for OT, Unaccounted Travel Time ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jevon Williams, Mitchell Martinez, Dimitrije Zivkovic and Derrick Adams individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Movage, Inc., Bajo Vujovic and Christian "Doe," Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-02628 (S.D.N.Y., April 12, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid wages due, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Laws. Defendants own and operate a moving business that provides residential and commercial moving services to customers nationwide and internationally. Plaintiffs worked as drivers and driver helpers for Defendants' moving business. Defendants alternately paid Plaintiffs on a percentage commission basis and then switching to hourly pay scheme often without notice. Plaintiffs claim that they missed out on overtime as Defendant often failed to pay them for time spent during travel. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Albert Adam Breud, II, Esq. FIRESTONE & BREUD, P.L.L.C. 356 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 3 Commack, NY 11725 Tel: (631) 543-3030, Ext. 2 Email: breudlaw@optonline.net - and - Robert Wisniewski, Esq. ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1020 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 267-2101 Email: rw@rwapc.com NASDAQ INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Rabin" Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Appeal on the dismissal of the case captioned, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, et al., remains pending, Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said, "we were named as a defendant in a putative class action, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, et al., No. 15-551 (E.D. Pa.), filed in 2015 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 21, 2016, the court entered an order granting our motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 18, 2016." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. "Given that the complaint was dismissed at the preliminary stage of the proceeding, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as the district court concluded) that the claims are without merit, and we intend to defend the dismissal on appeal vigorously." NASDAQ INC: Appeal in Providence Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------- The appeal in the case, City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., remains pendig, Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The company said, "We are named as one of many defendants in City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a private alternative trading system. On behalf of a putative class of securities traders, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to manipulate the markets through high- frequency trading; the amended complaint asserts claims against us under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as under Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act." "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 3, 2014. In response, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 24, 2014, which names the same defendants and alleges essentially the same violations. We then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on January 23, 2015. On August 26, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice, concluding that most of the plaintiffs' theories were foreclosed by absolute immunity and in any event that the plaintiffs failed to state any claim. The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit heard oral argument on August 24, 2016. "On August 25, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an order requesting the SEC's views on whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, and whether the defendants are immune from suit regarding the challenged conduct. The SEC filed its brief on November 28, 2016. The exchanges and plaintiffs filed supplemental briefs responding to the SEC's brief on December 12, 2016. "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, and particularly the fact that the complaints have been dismissed, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as the district court concluded) that the claims are without merit and will continue to litigate vigorously." NASDAQ INC: "Lanier" Plaintiff Did Not File SC Petition ------------------------------------------------------- Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Plaintiff in the case captioned, Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., did not file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court by the February 2, 2017 deadline. The Company said, "we were named as one of many exchange defendants in Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3745 (S.D.N.Y.), Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3865 (S.D.N.Y.), and Lanier v. Bats Exchange Inc., 14 Civ. 3866 (S.D.N.Y.), which were filed between May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff is the same in each of these cases, and the three complaints contain substantially similar allegations. On behalf of a putative class of subscribers for market data provided by national exchanges, the plaintiff alleges that the exchanges provided data more quickly to certain market participants than to others, supposedly in breach of the exchanges' plans for dissemination of market data and subscriber agreements executed under those plans. The complaint asserts contractual theories under state law based on these alleged breaches." "On September 29, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaints. On April 28, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing the complaints in their entirety with prejudice, concluding that they are foreclosed by the Exchange Act and in any event do not state a claim under the contracts. The plaintiff appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. "On September 23, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court's dismissal of all three complaints, concluding that many of plaintiff's claims were preempted, that plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of contract, and that, insofar as plaintiff alleged that the exchanges' implementation or operation of certain plans under Regulation NMS violates the Exchange Act, plaintiff was required to exhaust his administrative remedies before the SEC. "Plaintiff filed a petition for panel or en banc rehearing before the Second Circuit on October 7, 2016, in one of the three appeals. The Second Circuit denied the petition on November 4, 2016. Plaintiff did not file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court by the February 2, 2017 deadline." NAT'L FOOTBALL: Settlement Could be New Model for Handling Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Packel at Law360 reports attorneys on both sides of the landmark concussion settlement between the National Football League and former players highlighted the deal on April 20 as a potentially new model for handling mass-tort claims in federal courts via class actions. Speaking at the annual Third Circuit Judicial Conference in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, New York University law professor Samuel Issacharoff -- samuel.issacharoff@nyu.edu -- who represented the players, and Dechert LLP partner Robert Heim -- robert.heim@dechert.com -- who represented the NFL, agreed that the settlement -- and its ultimate approval by the Third Circuit - - marked a step forward in multidistrict litigation and class action law. Issacharoff noted that the presence of social media allowed for a growing awareness among potential class members, and reduced the import of a previous U.S. Supreme Court case -- Amchem v. Windsor -- that expressed skepticism about using class action settlements to resolve large numbers of claims. "We do not need to assume that absent class members are passive or those who have opted out have done so out of ignorance or because they don't have anywhere to turn for advice," he said. "The MDL origins of the modern class action are changing the way that the district courts are handling it, and I would suggest that the NFL decision of the Third Circuit is the first step towards recognizing that as a matter of formal doctrine." The Third Circuit in April 2016 affirmed both the class certification for the former players suffering from various ailments tied to repeated head injuries and concussions and the uncapped settlement reached between the league and class representatives Kevin Turner and Shawn Wooden. Objectors had argued the deal was lacking for those who suffered from the degenerative brain condition known as CTE. That deal followed a previous settlement agreement that was rejected by U.S. District Judge Anita Brody -- who sat in the audience at the panel -- that was capped at USD765 million For the NFL, there were substantial reasons for settling, according to Heim, who called the issue a "public relations nightmare" for the league. That also informed the league's decision to use the class action process, which required Judge Brody's approval, to settle the matter. "From the very beginning, the NFL was looking for certainty and closure," Heim said. "If you're settling an MDL, you don't have that closure. If more cases come, you settle these, you settle this tranche of cases, you settle the next tranche of cases, but you don't have closure." "The way of putting the MDL together with the class device gave it the best opportunity," he added. Heim did caution that the model was not "one-sized fits all," noting that pursuing a settlement through the class action process could increase the costs to defendants. "I don't think it's going to be the ultimate solution for every kind of problem out there," he said. John Beisner, the chair of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP's mass tort group, who also sat on the panel, was more skeptical of the wider applicability of the approach. He noted that for the drug and medical device cases that make up the vast majority of product liability cases in multidistrict litigation, a glut of false and poorly researched claims made class action resolutions less desirable. "If you're looking at this from the defendant's perspective dealing with that already, and then setting this case on a class basis: putting out -- as you often do -- USD100,000, USD250,000, USD300,000 per claim; as Bob was saying, 'certainty and closure,' you're going to get the opposite of that," he said. NEUSTAR INC: "Parshall" Suit Pending in Delaware ------------------------------------------------ NeuStar, Inc. is defending against a class action lawsuit by Parshall, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said, "On December 14, 2016, we announced that we entered into a definitive merger agreement to be acquired by a private investment group led by Golden Gate Capital. Under the terms of the merger agreement, our stockholders will be entitled to receive $33.50 per share following the closing of the proposed merger. The merger, which is expected to close no later than the end of the third quarter of 2017, is subject to approval by our stockholders, regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions." The Company said, "We, along with other parties to the merger agreement and our Board of Directors, have been named as defendants in a class action complaint filed on January 20, 2017, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, entitled Parshall v. NeuStar, Inc. et al., Case 1:17-cv-00060-LPS. We and our Board also have been named as defendants in a class action complaint filed on February 1, 2017, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, entitled Rubin v. NeuStar, Inc. et al., Case 1:17-cv-00104. The complaints allege violations of the federal securities laws by the defendants in connection with the preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed by us with the SEC with a filing date of January 7, 2017. The complaints seek, among other things, an injunction preventing the consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger if it is consummated or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. We believe that the respective allegations asserted against us in the lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against the lawsuits vigorously. Similar cases may also be filed in connection with the proposed merger." NIAGRA BOTTLING: "Manu" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Manu on behalf of himself, individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Niagra Bottling LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01181, (S.D. Tex., April 15, 2017), seeks equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, taxable costs of court and post-judgment interest for willful failure to pay overtime wages and compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a machine operator, working at the assembly line, assembling water bottles for various brands and operating heavy machinery. Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Phone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com NIBCO INC: Cole Moves for Class Cert.; Hearing Set for June 19 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled KIMBERLY COLE, ALAN COLE, JAMES MONICA, LINDA BOYD, MICHAEL MCMAHON, RAY SMINKEY, JAMES MEDDERS, JUDY MEDDERS, ROBERT PEPERNO, SARAH PEPERNO, and KELLY MCCOY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NIBCO, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-07871-FLW-TJB (D.N.J.), ask the Court for an order granting class certification or, in the alternative, certifying certain common issues for class treatment. The Court will commence a hearing on June 19, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QHSGB0sJ The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 877-3820 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - and - Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 645-4720 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 555 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0580 Facsimile: (610) 727-4360 E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com The Defendant is represented by: Jean Paul Bradshaw II, Esq. LATHROP & GAGE LLP 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 460-5507 Facsimile: (816) 292-2001 E-mail: jpbradshaw@lathropgage.com - and - Franco A. Corrado, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Telephone: (215) 963-4806 E-mail: fcorrado@morganlewis.com ONTARIO: Koskie Minsky Commences Solitary Confinement Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Koskie Minsky LLP has commenced a class action against the Province of Ontario alleging human rights violations relating to the over-use of solitary confinement in Ontario prisons. The statement of claim issued on April 20, 2017 alleges, among other things, that the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services has been negligent, has breached its fiduciary duties and has breached the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in placing mentally ill prisoners in solitary confinement for prolonged periods. The class includes all mentally ill prisoners who were subjected to solitary confinement in Ontario prisons between January 1, 1985 and the present. The Plaintiff's lawyers believe that thousands of people will be included in this class proceeding. Conrey Francis, a prisoner who has been remanded at the Toronto South Detention Centre since January 2015 and who was recently acquitted of all charges, is the proposed representative plaintiff. Kirk Baert, a partner at Koskie Minsky LLP, stated "For too long, the government of Ontario has ignored ongoing human rights violations in their own institutions. Over-reliance on solitary confinement must come to an end." James Sayce, a lawyer at Koskie Minsky, stated "Prisoners are being locked away in solitary confinement and forgotten. This practice is shocking and the responsible government actors should be held accountable." OREGON: Disability Rights Group Sue over In-Home Services Cuts -------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Mccann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that thousands of disabled Oregonians will be hurt by inexplicable cuts to in-home services, a disability rights group claims in a federal class action in Eugene, Ore. Five people with disabilities, using pseudonyms, sued the Oregon Department of Human Services and the Office of Development Disabilities Services over the cuts which began last September. Three plaintiffs have autism spectrum disorders, and two have cerebral palsy. They say the cuts violate their due process rights, and "put some members of the class at serious risk of segregation and isolation, in violation of the integration mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act." "The defendants supplied no individualized explanation for those cuts, justifying them only by citing to an opaque needs assessment tool, whose operation is not explained in the notice or anywhere else," the complaint states. In-home services provided to the proposed class members are funded with Medicaid money through the Department of Human Services, and every year the state reevaluates their needs using "an internal and undisclosed algorithm," according to the April 10 complaint. The most recent changes to needs assessment reduce the hours generated by around 30 percent, which caused major reductions to people who need the in-home services, the plaintiffs say. They say it is impossible for a consumer to understand the formula used. Four plaintiffs are adults, and one is a 9-year-old boy. The boy, who has autism, has intense emotional outbursts and because of his large size needs an adult larger than his mother to prevent him from injuring himself. Another plaintiff, a 40-year-old woman with cerebral palsy, says the reduced hours are not enough to meet her needs, and that her parents were not allowed to participate in the process seeking an exception. "This reduction of in-home care hours compromises her safety in the home, because she will not have adequate resources to ensure that her behavioral challenges are managed," the complaint states. Around 8,000 adults and 3,000 children in Oregon have used in-home care services since 2015, and the reductions eliminate much-needed care for them, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs say the cuts also violate the Medicaid Act because Oregon cannot cut benefits in a way that does not meet people's medical needs. "By failing to provide a reason for the benefit cuts, DHS has left countless families, not only puzzled, but completely in the dark," Tom Stenson, an attorney with Disability Rights Oregon, said in a statement. "Without making clear how these hours were calculated, DHS has essentially created a black box that shields their decisions from public scrutiny and prevents people with disabilities from arguing that the calculation does not accurately reflect their needs." The plaintiffs seek class certification, declaratory judgment and an injunction, and damages for violations of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, for lack of notice and use of a secret algorithm, and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Social Security Act. They are represented by Kathleen Wilde with Disability Rights Oregon, in Portland. The case is captioned, C.S. ex rel. K.C.; K.C. ex rel L.C.; T.B. ex rel. C.B.; B.B. ex rel C. B.; T.C. ex rel L.C., on their own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLYDE SAIKI, in his official capacity as Director of Department of Human Services, State of Oregon; and LILIA TENINTY, in her official capacity as the Director of the Office of Developmental Disabilities Services, Oregon Department of Human Services, Defendants, Civ. No. 6:17-cv-00564 (D. Ore.). Counsel for Plaintiffs: Kathleen L. Wilde, Esq Thomas Stenson, Esq. Gordon Magella, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Suite 200 Portland OR 97205 Tel: (503) 243 2081 Fax: (503) 243 1738 E-mail: kwilde@droregon.org tstenson@droregon.org gmagella@droregon.org ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: "Douvris" Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------ Ormat Technologies, Inc. is defending against a class action lawsuit by Douvris et al, Ormat said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On August 5, 2016, George Douvris, Stephanie Douvris, Michael Hale, Cheryl Cacocci, Hillary E. Wilt and Christina Bryan, acting for themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated residents of the lower Puna District, filed a complaint in the Third Circuit Court for the State of Hawaii seeking certification of a class action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, consequential and punitive damages, attorney's fees and statutory interest against PGV and other presently unknown defendants. The complaint purports that injuries and other damages in an undisclosed amount were caused to the plaintiffs as a result of an alleged toxic release by PGV in the wake of Hurricane Iselle in August 2014. On August 25, 2016, the Company filed to remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. On December 12, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for joinder of HELCO as an additional defendant, to amend the complaint, and to remand the case back to the Third Circuit Court. The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law, and intends to defend itself vigorously. Ormat is a vertically integrated company that is currently primarily engaged in the geothermal and recovered energy power business. PARAMOUNT GOLD: Former Stockholders' Litigation Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Court of Chancery granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned, IN RE PARAMOUNT GOLD AND SILVER CORP. STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION, Case No. No. 10499-CB (Del. Ch.). In the action, former stockholders of Paramount Gold and Silver Corporation (Paramount) sued the members of its board of directors challenging a transaction Paramount entered with Coeur Mining, Inc. (Coeur) that closed in April 2015. Shortly after the Merger's announcement on December 17, 2014, six actions were filed in the Court challenging the transaction. On February 18, 2015, the Court consolidated the various actions into this action and appointed lead counsel. On August 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (as defined above, the Complaint), asserting a single claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the seven members of Paramount's board in connection with their approval of the transaction. The Third Amended Complaint added back allegations challenging certain disclosures in the Registration Statement, including allegations that plaintiffs had deleted just four months earlier. On September 28, 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. In the Memorandum Opinion dated April 13, 2017 available at https://is.gd/HgvSrc from Leagle.com, the Court of Chancery held that the Complaint failed to state a claim. Plaintiffs are represented by Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. -- sdr@rl- legal.com -- Brian D. Long, Esq. -- bdl@rl-legal.com -- Gina M. Serra, Esq. -- gms@rl-legal.com -- and -- Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. -- jjr@rl-legal.com -- RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. -- Derrick B. Farrell, Esq. -- derrick.farrell@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP -- Michael Van Gorder, Esq. -- mvangorder@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP -- Peter Andrews, Esq. -- ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC -- Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. -- shopkins@zlk.com -- and -- Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq. -- etripodi@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP -- Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. -- jml@jlclasslaw.com -- LIFSHITZ & MILLER Christopher Crupi, John Carden, Michel Stinglhamber, Robert Dinning, Eliseo Gonzalez-Urien, Christopher Reynolds, and Shawn Kennedy are represented by Albert H. Manwaring, IV, Esq. -- amanwaring@morrisjames.com -- and -- Albert J. Carroll, Esq. -- acarroll@morrisjames.com -- MORRIS JAMES LLP PATTERN ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Dismisses Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Pattern Energy Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the lead plaintiff in a shareholder class action lawsuit has agreed to dismiss the case. The Company said, "We and certain of our executive officers have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in November 2016 alleging that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions relating to disclosures related to our internal controls. The complaint was filed on behalf of the putative class of stockholders who purchased shares of our Class A common stock between May 9, 2016 and November 4, 2016, and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. In January 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff of the putative class. The lead plaintiff has since agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice. The parties have filed a stipulation with the court to this effect." Pattern Energy is an independent power company focused on owning and operating power projects with stable long-term cash flows in attractive markets with potential for continued growth of our business. PRA GROUP: TCPA Case Settlement Subject to Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation against PRA Group, Inc., remains subject to final court approval, PRA Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers' cellular telephones without their prior express consent. On December 21, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation entered an order transferring these matters into one consolidated proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court"). On November 14, 2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action"). Following the ruling of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on June 10, 2015 on various petitions concerning the TCPA, the Court lifted the stay of these matters that had been in place since May 20, 2014. In January 2016, the parties reached a settlement agreement in principle ("the Settlement Agreement") under which the parties agreed to seek court approval of class certification and the proposed settlement. As required by the Settlement Agreement, which remains subject to final court approval, the parties sought preliminary Court approval of the Settlement Agreement, and the Company paid $18 million to resolve the MDL action during the second quarter of 2016. The Company had fully accrued for the settlement amount as of December 31, 2015. Headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia and incorporated in Delaware, PRA Group is a global financial and business services company with operations in the Americas and Europe. PREMIUM PACKING: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in "Diaz" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit captioned MARIO IVAN ESPINOZA DIAZ and GUILLERMO CRUZ CRUZ, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. PREMIUM PACKING, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 5:15-cv-01258-EJD (N.D. Cal.). The Court certifies for settlement purposes, for treatment as a class action, a settlement class defined as all persons employed by Defendant as piece-rate agricultural workers assigned by Defendant to work for its clients during the period beginning February 10, 2011 to and including December 31, 2015. The Court orders the Defendant to make a payment into the settlement fund, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Settlement, of the amount needed to fund all amounts payable under the Settlement separate from the Safe Harbor Amount previously paid by the Defendant. The Court orders that payment from the settlement fund of settlement administration fees to Dahl Administration in the amount of $12,111 be made in accordance with the Settlement. The Plaintiffs are awarded the amount of $140,000 of which $7,158 is for litigation costs, and $132,821 is for reasonable attorney's fees, to be paid from the settlement fund. The Court awards the Plaintiffs the amount of $4,000 each as a class representative enhancement payment. The Court directs that this order be entered as a final judgment dismissing the action with prejudice. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3hUgHe59 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Santos Gomez, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ 2901 Park Avenue, B16 Soquel, CA 95073 Telephone: (831) 471-8780 Facsimile: (831) 471-8774 E-mail: santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com - and - Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. KARASIK LAW FIRM 11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1275 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312-6800 Facsimile: (310) 943-2582 E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: November 2018 Trial in "Hsu" Action ------------------------------------------------------- Puma Biotechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the court has set a trial for November 6, 2018, in the case, Hsu vs. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., et al. The Company said, "On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG). On October 16, 2015, lead Plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed an amended complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased our securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015. The amended complaint alleges that we and certain of our executive officers made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, prospects and performance in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief." "On November 30, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiff opposed this motion, and the court heard oral argument on March 14, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the court denied our motion to dismiss. The court set a trial for November 6, 2018. We intend to vigorously defend this matter." Puma is a biopharmaceutical company with a focus on the development and commercialization of innovative products to enhance cancer care. R1 RCM: Settlement Reached in "Anger" Class Action -------------------------------------------------- R1 RCM Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the parties in a class action lawsuit have reached a settlement in principle. On July 22, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Anger v. Accretive Health, Inc.). The primary allegations are that the Company attempted to collect debts without providing the notice required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Michigan Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and failed to abide by the terms of an agreed payment plan in violation of those same statutes. On August 27, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. An amended complaint was filed on November 30, 2015. Discovery is underway, but on July 15, 2016, the court postponed all deadlines in the case as the parties attempt to finalize a confidential agreement in principle to settle the case. On February 23, 2017, the parties reached a settlement in principle and are preparing a motion for pre-approval and class settlement. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims, if the settlement in principle is not finalized. R1 is a provider of revenue cycle management, or RCM, services and physician advisory services, or PAS, to healthcare providers. It helps healthcare providers generate sustainable improvements in their operating margins and cash flows while also enhancing patient, physician and staff satisfaction for customers. REALTY CONSULTING: "Williams" Hits Illegal Provision in Lease ------------------------------------------------------------- Startrecey Williams, Individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Realty Consulting Services, Inc. and Apartment Investors XVIILP, Defendants, Case No. 2017CH05302 (Ill. Cir., April 12, 2017), seeks statutory damages attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs as specified in City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance. Apartment Investors owns the property at 7708-18 S. Shore Drive in Chicago (Sunrise Property) at which Plaintiff leases an apartment. RCS manages various apartment properties in the City of Chicago. Realty Consulting Services manages the Sunrise Property. Defendants attempted to enforce a provision in their rental agreement insisting that a lessee is liable for the lessor's attorney's fees incurred to enforce lessee's compliance with the terms of the lease. Defendant filed a counterclaim in Cook County Circuit Court Case No. 2014-M1-142448 for breach of lease against Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: JS LAW 29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone (312) 756-1330 Email: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Class Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------- RealPage, Inc. continues to defend the "Stokes" class action lawsuit, RealPage said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said, "In March 2015, we were named in a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled Stokes v. RealPage, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01520. The claims in this purported class action relate to alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") in connection with background screens of prospective tenants of our clients. On January 25, 2016, the court entered an order placing the case on hold until the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which case addressed issues related to standing to bring claims related to the FCRA." "On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Spokeo litigation, vacating the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remanding the case for further consideration by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, the judge in the Stokes case lifted the stay. On June 24, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss certain claims made in the case based upon the Spokeo decision. On October 19, 2016, the U.S. District Court denied the motion to dismiss. We intend to defend this case vigorously." RealPage, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a technology leader to the real estate industry, helping owners, managers, and investors optimize both operational yields and investment returns. REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Class Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------- RealPage, Inc. continues to defend the "Jenkins" class action lawsuit, RealPage said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said, "In November 2014, we were named in a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, styled Jenkins v. RealPage, Inc., Case No. 3:14cv758. The claims in this purported class action relate to alleged violations of the FCRA in connection with background screens of prospective tenants of our clients. This case has since been transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On January 25, 2016, the court entered an order placing the case on hold until the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in the Spokeo case. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, the judge in the Jenkins case lifted the stay." "On June 24, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss certain claims made in the case based upon the Spokeo decision. On October 19, 2016, the U.S. District Court denied the motion to dismiss. We intend to defend this case vigorously." RealPage, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a technology leader to the real estate industry, helping owners, managers, and investors optimize both operational yields and investment returns. REHABCARE GROUP: Settlement in TCPA Suit Has Prelim. Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement and certification of the settlement class in the case captioned, DAKOTA MEDICAL, INC., a California corporation doing business as Glenoaks Convalescent Hospital, Plaintiff, v. REHABCARE GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, and CANNON & ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation doing business as Polaris Group, Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-02081-DAD- BAM (E.D. Cal.). The complaint in the action was filed on December 29, 2014, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Plaintiff alleges defendants violated the TCPA and various regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by sending more than 2.4 million transmissions of junk faxes to long-term care facilities throughout the country. The complaint alleges that defendants purchased lists of fax numbers for more than 12,000 long-term care facilities from a third party, Billian Publishing, Inc., and had no reason to believe these health care providers had given their permission to receive these advertisements. Further, the advertisements allegedly failed to include opt-out notices mandated by federal law. Defendants purportedly hired an outside company, WestFax, Inc., to carry out the fax advertising campaign en masse. On November 22, 2016 the class action had been settled, and the then-pending certification. Plaintiff filed the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and certification of a settlement class on March 21, 2017. The proposed class for this settlement is defined as "all persons that were subscribers of facsimile telephone numbers to which there was a successful transmission of one or more facsimiles by Defendants (or either of them) between July 17, 2010, and February 4, 2014, in broadcasts by WestFax Inc." The settlement is structured as a common fund for $25 million, and seeks appointment of plaintiff as class representative, and attorneys C. Darryl Cordero of Payne & Fears LLP, Donald R. Fischbach of Dowling Aaron Inc., and Joel S. Magolnick of Marko & Magolnick, P.A. as class counsel. In his Order dated April 19, 2017 available at https://is.gd/0Kbepp from Leagle.com, Judge Drozd found that the settlement is preliminarily fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the proposed settlement class. The Court appointed Plaintiff Dakota Medical, Inc. as representative of the settlement class; C. Darryl Cordero of Payne & Fears LLP as lead settlement class counsel and Donald R. Fischbach of Dowling Aaron and Joel S. Magolnick of Marko & Magolnick P.A. as settlement class counsel; and KCC LLC as the settlement administrator. Dakota Medical, Inc. is represented by Donald R. Fischbach, Esq. - - dfischbach@dowlingaaron.com -- and -- Mark D. Kruthers, Esq. -- mkruthers@dowlingaaron.com -- DOWLING AARON INCORPORATED Dakota Medical, Inc. is represented by Daniel Friedman Lula, Esq. -- dfl@paynefears.com -- Leilani Elizabeth Livingston, Esq. -- dml@paynefears.com -- Matthew K. Brown, Esq. -- mkb@paynefears.com -- and -- Scott Olin Luskin, Esq. -- sol@paynefears.com -- PAYNE & FEARS LLP RehabCare Group, Inc. is represented by Jon Wilson, Esq. -- jwilson@broadandcassel.com -- Kimberly Freedman, Esq. -- kfreedman@broadandcassel.com -- Melissa Jill Gomberg, Esq. -- mgomberg@broadandcassel.com -- and -- Erin Kristen Kolmansberger, Esq. -- ekolmansberger@broadandcassel.com -- BROAD AND CASSEL -- Oliver W. Wanger, Esq. -- owanger@wjhattorneys.com -- WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC RENEWABLE ENERGY: "Stacy" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Stacy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Renewable Energy Center, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00755 (S.D. Cal., April 14, 2017) seeks damages, injunctive relief and any other available legal or equitable remedies under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Ms. Stacy received numerous telephone calls on her cellular telephone from Defendant, in which Defendant utilized an automatic telephone dialing system with an artificial or prerecorded voice, offering a power bill-reduction service from a certain "American Pro Energy." All calls were placed without Plaintiff's consent. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Lemieux, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 Email: kevin@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com REPUBLIC SCHOOLS: Tenn. Court Certifies Class in "Skeete" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., granted in part and denied in part the Representative Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned IRIKA SKEETE, et al. v. REPUBLIC SCHOOLS NASHVILLE, Case No. 3:16-cv-00043 (M.D. Tenn.). The Court certifies one class (no subclass) defined as: All individuals who were sent and received a text to their cellular telephones by RePublic Schools Nashville ("RSN") from the number (615) 270-4554 during the time period August 17, 2015, through January 15, 2016, and whose cellular phone number was obtained by RSN from the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools database. The Court also granted the Defendant's motion for leave to file notice of supplemental authority. Judge Crenshaw ordered the parties to participate in alternative dispute resolution, pursuant to Rules 16.02 - 16.08 of the Local Rules of Court. Judge Crenshaw states that the Magistrate Judge will issue all necessary orders to implement the type of alternative dispute resolution he selects as appropriate. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lK5fwtPQ RESOLUTE FOREST: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Resolute Forest Products Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit remains pending, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On March 2, 2016, a proposed class action lawsuit (Reynolds, et al v. Resolute Forest Products Inc., Resolute FP US Inc., Resolute FP US Health and Resolute Welfare Benefit Plan) was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of certain Medicare-eligible retirees who were previously unionized employees of our Calhoun, Tennessee; Catawba, South Carolina; and Coosa Pines, Alabama, mills, and their spouses and dependents. The plaintiffs allege that the modifications described above breach the collective bargaining agreements and plan covering the members of the proposed class in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs seek reinstatement of the health care benefits as in effect before January 1, 2015, for the proposed class in the lawsuit. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to defend the action. On May 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The proposed class action lawsuit is at a preliminary stage and no class has been certified. Resolute Forest is a global leader in the forest products industry with a diverse range of products, including market pulp, tissue, wood products, newsprint and specialty papers. ROCK FISH: Faces Proposed Wage-and-Overtime Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Joyce Hanson at Law360 reports the Southern California hospitality company behind the luxury Shade Hotels and several popular restaurants, including one that was jointly founded with members of rock band Kiss, got smacked on April 18 in county court with a proposed wage-and-overtime class action by a current employee at its steak and seafood eatery Rock'n Fish. Restaurateur and hotelier Michael Zislis' Manhattan Beach-based Zislis Group, whose eateries include two Rock'n Fish restaurants and the Rock & Brews comfort food chain that Zislis co-founded with Kiss' Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley, allegedly violated California law by failing to provide required meal and rest periods and to pay overtime and minimum wages, according to employee David Martinez Oliva. The suit -- which names the Rock'n Fish restaurants, the Zislis Group and Zislis Boutique Hotels LLC but not the Rock & Brews chain -- claims that the potential class of current and former employees were routinely expected to work off the clock and denied overtime and required break periods in violation of the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders and the Business and Professions Code. "During the class period, as part of defendants' illegal payroll policies and practices to deprive their non-exempt employees all wages earned and due, defendants required, permitted or otherwise suffered plaintiff and class members to take less than the 30- minute meal period, or to work through them, and have failed to otherwise provide the required meal periods to plaintiff and class members pursuant to California Labor Code 226.7, 512 and IWC Order No 5-2001," Martinez said in his complaint. Over the past four years, Oliva said, Rock'n Fish illegally calculated overtime compensation, failed to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failed to indemnify employees for expenditures and losses incurred in discharging their duties and didn't provide accurate itemized wage statements or maintain required records. Oliva and the proposed class seek compensatory damages to be determined at trial, restitution of unpaid wages and overtime, disgorged profits from the defendants' allegedly unfair and unlawful business practices, liquidated damages pursuant to California Labor Code and statutory and civil penalties. Zislis Group representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment on April 20. Legal counsel for Oliva did not respond to a request for comment. Oliva is represented by Matthew J. Matern -- MMatern@maternlawgroup.com -- and Tagore O. Subramaniam -- Tsubramaniam@maternlawgroup.com -- of Matern Law Group PC. Legal counsel information for Zislis Group was not available. The case is David Martinez Oliva v. Rock Fish LLC et al., number BC658207, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. SEARS HOME: Wins Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Coleman" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Nannette Jolivette Brown granted the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations in the lawsuit captioned ANTHONY COLEMAN AND AVA COLEMAN v. SEARS HOME IMPROVEMENT PRODUCTS INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-02537-NJB-MBN (E.D. La.). Judge Brown also ordered the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to eliminate their class allegations. Judge Brown denied as moot the Plaintiffs' precautionary motion to certify class and the Plaintiffs' subsequent motion to withdraw motion to certify class and all claims related to the proposed class action. In this litigation, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to ensure that their roof was properly installed pursuant to their contract and in accordance with applicable building codes and manufacturer specifications. The Plaintiffs bring the action individually and as a class action on behalf of all customers of SHIP nationwide, who contracted with SHIP to replace their current roof with a 3-tab shingle roof between January 2006 and January 2016. The Court finds that it is facially apparent from the pleadings that the Plaintiffs' class action allegations are deficient under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint fails to plead the minimum facts necessary to support a class action under Rule 23, and the fatal flaws in the complaint cannot be cured by additional discovery or an evidentiary hearing, Judge Brown opined. In particular, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' overbroad class allegations lack commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, and that the Plaintiffs failed to allege facts to support a finding that Rule 23(b)'s requirements for predominance and superiority are satisfied. Moreover, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs failed to comply with Local Rule 23, as their amended complaint does not refer to the portions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 "under which it is claimed that the suit is properly maintainable as a class action." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AxfPGXxw SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Securities Action Pending in California --------------------------------------------------------------- SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. continues to face a securities class action lawsuit in California, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the Company's Board, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone. On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, Pensionskassen For Borne- Og Ungdomspaedagoger and Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs, Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the Chairman of the Company's Board, certain of its executive officers, Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial public offering and secondary public offerings. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially false and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld's business at the time of each public statement. On May 29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the amended complaint, in its entirety, without prejudice. On May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"), which, among other things, no longer names the Company's Board or underwriters as defendants. On June 29, 2016, the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On September 30, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. On October 28, 2016, defendants filed their Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit. SeaWorld is a theme park and entertainment company providing experiences that matter and inspiring guests to protect animals and the wild wonders of the world. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in "Hall" Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the appeal by Plaintiffs in the "Hall" consumer class action lawsuit remains pending. On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00600-CAB-RBB (the "Hall Matter"). The complaint identifies three putative classes consisting of all consumers nationwide who at any time during the four-year period preceding the filing of the original complaint, purchased an admission ticket, a membership or a SeaWorld "experience" that includes an "orca experience" from the SeaWorld amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida or San Antonio, Texas respectively. The complaint alleges causes of action under California Unfair Competition Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California False Advertising Law, California Deceit statute, Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The complaint further alleges that the specific misrepresentations heard and relied upon by Holly Hall in purchasing her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstances surrounding the death of a SeaWorld trainer. The complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $5.0 million, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). In addition, four other purported class actions were filed against the Company and its affiliates. The first three actions were filed on April 9, 2015, April 16, 2015 and April 17, 2015, respectively, in the following federal courts: (i) the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned Joyce Kuhl v. SeaWorld LLC et al., 6:15-cv-00574-ACC-GJK (the "Kuhl Matter"), (ii) the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned Jessica Gaab, et. al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-842-CAB-RBB (the "Gaab Matter"), and (iii) the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, captioned Elaine Salazar Browne v. SeaWorld of Texas LLC et al., 5:15-cv-00301-XR (the "Browne Matter"). On May 1, 2015, the Kuhl Matter and Browne Matter were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the respective plaintiffs. On May 7, 2015, plaintiffs Kuhl and Browne re-filed their claims, along with a new plaintiff, Valerie Simo, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in an action captioned Valerie Simo et al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-1022-CAB-RBB (the "Simo Matter"). All four of these cases, in essence, reiterate the claims made and relief sought in the Hall Matter. On August 7, 2015, the Gaab Matter and Simo Matter were consolidated with the Hall Matter, and the plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint ("FAC") on August 21, 2015. The FAC pursued the same seven causes of action as the original Hall complaint, and added a request for punitive damages pursuant to the California CLRA. The Company moved to dismiss the FAC in its entirety, and its motion was granted on December 24, 2015. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted dismissal with prejudice as to the California CLRA claim, the portion of California Unfair Competition Law claim premised on the CLRA claim, all claims for injunctive relief, and on all California claims premised solely on alleged omissions by the Company. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted leave to amend as to the remainder of the complaint. On January 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC pursues the same causes of action as the FAC, except for the California CLRA, which, as noted above, was dismissed with prejudice. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the entirety of the SAC with prejudice on February 25, 2016. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Company's motion to dismiss the entire SAC with prejudice and entered judgment for the Company on May 13, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit") on June 10, 2016. The appeal has been fully briefed and is awaiting an oral argument date. SeaWorld is a theme park and entertainment company providing experiences that matter and inspiring guests to protect animals and the wild wonders of the world. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Discovery Conference Held in "Anderson" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-02172 (N.D. Cal.), counsel to the parties attended a discovery conference on March 16, 2017, before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Parties met and conferred for two hours. Parties reached a tentative resolution of issues raised by a Joint Letter Brief 113 . If the issues are not fully resolved, the parties will follow the Court's joint letter procedure. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. continues to face the class action lawsuit by Marc Anderson, et al., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545292 (the "Anderson Matter"). The putative class consists of all consumers within California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San Diego. On May 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "First Amended Complaint"). The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action under the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California CLRA. Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The First Amended Complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs. Based on plaintiffs' definition of the class, the amount in controversy exceeds $5.0 million, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 15:cv-2172-SC. On May 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. On September 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety. The motion was fully briefed. On September 24, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied plaintiffs' motion to remand. On October 5, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this order, and contemporaneously filed a petition for permission to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which the Company opposed. On October 14, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs' motion for leave. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was fully briefed. On January 12, 2016, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the motion for reconsideration, and refused to remand the case. On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the January 12, 2016 order to the Ninth Circuit, which the Company opposed. On April 7, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied both of plaintiffs' petitions for permission to appeal and the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"), seeking to add two additional plaintiffs and make various pleading adjustments. The Company opposed the motion. On August 1, 2016, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting in part the Company's motion to dismiss and granting plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by August 22, 2016, which they filed. The Second Amended Complaint likewise asserted causes of action based on the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California CLRA. Essentially plaintiffs allege there were fraudulent representations made by the Company about the health of its orcas that ultimately induced consumers to purchase admission tickets to SeaWorld parks and in some cases, plush toys while in the parks. The Company moved to dismiss this on various grounds. On November 7, 2016, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting in part, and denying in part, the Company's motion to dismiss. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California found that one named plaintiff failed to allege reliance on any specific statements so those claims, in their entirety, have been dismissed. In addition, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California determined that plaintiffs did not allege any misrepresentations made about the plush toy purchases, which disposes of the CLRA claims based on the toys. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California also found that certain plaintiff's conversation with SeaWorld's trainers was not "advertising," and dismissed the false advertising claim and Unfair Competition Law claim premised on it. Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Class Action Complaint on November 22, 2016. The Company moved to dismiss portions of that pleading, but the motion to dismiss was denied. What remains at this point are plaintiff's claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and the CLRA based on the purchase of tickets; plaintiff's California Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law claims based on the purchase of plush toys; and plaintiff's claims under California's Unfair Competition Law based on the purchase of plush toys. The Company believes that these consumer class action lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits. SeaWorld is a theme park and entertainment company providing experiences that matter and inspiring guests to protect animals and the wild wonders of the world. SOCIETE DE TRANSPORT: RAPLIQ Asks Court to Launch Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Magder at Montreal Gazette reports if transit agencies had followed the law, most metro and train stations would be accessible by now, say the lawyers representing people who rely on wheelchairs to get around. "The Quebec charter (of Human Rights and Freedoms) went into effect in 1975, so all the stations built after that point should be accessible to everyone," said Gilles Gareau, the lawyer representing the Regroupement des activistes pour l'inclusion au Quebec (RAPLIQ). The group was in Quebec Superior Court on April 19 and April 20 requesting permission to launch a class-action suit against the Societe de transport de Montreal, the Agence metropolitaine de transport and the city of Montreal. The group claims the charter guarantees their right to equality, and to build a transit system without elevators excludes them and is discriminatory. The first 26 stations of the metro were built in 1966 , and the first extension was built in 1976. That means the majority of the 68 stations should have been accessible from the get-go, Gareau said. "They are a public agency; they can't just ignore the charter," he said. "If you offer a public service, it should be accessible to everyone." Gareau argued the transit network is inaccessible because of bus ramps that routinely break down, only 11 out of 68 metro stations have elevators, and only one of six commuter train lines in the region has stations that are accessible. However, the transit agencies countered they can't be held accountable for those problems, because they are not the ones deciding whether to make the network accessible -- that is the role of the elected officials who oversee the agencies. "You can't sue the STM for decisions on how it allocates its budget, saying it should have dedicated more resources to public transit," said Jean-Philippe Desmarais, the lawyer for the STM. The STM already provides service for people with reduced mobility, he said. The adapted transit service -- which uses minibuses and vans adapted to transport people in wheelchairs -- may not be perfect, he said, but it does allow people in wheelchairs to get around the city. "Yes there are inconveniences with the service, but there are also benefits -- for example, a door-to-door service that people in the regular network don't have access to," Desmarais said. SOLARCITY CORP: Class Certification Motion Underway in "Morris" --------------------------------------------------------------- The motion for class certification in the case, Morris v. SolarCity Corporation, remains pending, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On April 20, 2017, SolarCity filed a Statement regarding the Opposition/Response to the Company's Statement of Recent Decision In Support of Opposition to Motion for Class Certification. On November 6, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit, Morris v. SolarCity, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company made unlawful telephone marketing calls to the plaintiff and others, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages, on behalf of himself and a certified class. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the District Court denied on April 6, 2016. Following discovery, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on December 15, 2016. Briefing on class certification was expected to be complete in late February 2017, and the certification motion will be heard in March 2017. SolarCity continues to believe that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company has accrued a reserve for its potential liability associated with this matter and the Gibbs matter, as of December 31, 2016. SOLARCITY CORP: Files Answer to "Gibbs" Suit -------------------------------------------- In the case, Gibbs et al v. SolarCity Corporation, Case No. 4:16- cv-11010 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Timothy S Hillman on March 8, 2017, entered a Memorandum and Order denying SolarCity's Motion to Dismiss. On March 22, SolarCity filed its Answer to the Complaint. SolarCity said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that on June 1, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gibbs v. SolarCity, alleging that the Company made unlawful telephone marketing calls in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The two named plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and statutory damages, on behalf of themselves and a certified class. The Company has moved to dismiss the complaint; the hearing on that motion was held on December 8, 2016. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company has accrued a reserve for its potential liability associated with this matter and the Morris matter, as of December 31, 2016. SUNDANCE INC: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Flanagan" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JOLENE FLANAGAN, TRAVIS PIETRYKOWSKI, MICHELLE WILKINS, and DENISE WOOD v. SUNDANCE, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-13598-GCS-RSW (E.D. Mich.), ask the Court to: (1) conditionally certify a proposed collective class under the Fair Labor Standards Act: All Team Members, Shift Leads, other hourly employees, Assistant Managers or General Managers that were employed with Defendant at any of its Taco Bell locations at any time in the past three years; (2) implement a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims are sent to all hourly workers, assistant managers and general managers for the past three years; (3) require the Defendants to identify potential opt-in plaintiffs; and (4) require the Notice to be posted in the Defendants' workplaces (away from view of customers but in a common place for its employees to view). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=czG507ba The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer Lossia McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C. 25892 Woodward Ave. Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 542-6300 E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com - and - Megan A. Bonanni, Esq. PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, P.C. 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott C. Fanning, Esq. Joel W. Rice, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 10 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3450 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 346-8061 E-mail: sfanning@laborlawyers.com jrice@fisherphillips.com TESLA INC: Faces Suit Over Software Updates on Cars' Autopilots --------------------------------------------------------------- Gareth Corefield at The Register reports a class-action lawsuit has been launched against Tesla on the basis that updates to its cars' autopilots are "vapourware." The three sample claimants say that they all paid for a variety of extra features and updates to their Tesla Model S cars, including updates to version 2 of the Enhanced Autopilot, AP2.0, at USD5,000 each. Other paid-for features they say did not work or were not bundled with their new cars include automatic emergency braking and side collision warnings. Over-the-air updates were either not delivered, they claim, or degraded performance of their cars' autopilots compared to the original version. It is said that 50,000 Model S cars are affected by the disputed updates. "Rather than deliver safe and advanced autopilot features, Tesla has delivered software that causes vehicles to behave erratically... The Enhanced Autopilot Features are simply too dangerous to be used, and are therefore, completely useless notwithstanding the USD5,000 premium that Dean paid for Enhanced Autopilot," says their claim, filed in California on April 20. Tesla's website boasts that its Model S is "designed from the ground up to be the safest, most exhilarating sedan on the road", as quoted in the complaint. The three complainants -- Dean Sheikh of Denver, Colorado; John Kelner of Davie, Florida; and Tim Milone of Jackson, New Jersey -- allege that Tesla has broken a number of US state laws, including consumer prosecution laws, "unjust enrichment" laws in Florida, and fraud by concealment. They want a court injunction against Tesla stopping it from "continuing the unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent and unfair business practices alleged in this complaint" and a mandatory buyback of affected Model S cars -- plus the inevitable lawyers' fees and damages on top of that. Tesla has yet to file a response to the suit, number 5:17-cv- 02193-NC in the US District Court for Northern California. TESLA INC: Dismissal of Securities Action Affirmed -------------------------------------------------- Tesla, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that an appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit. In November 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against Tesla in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, alleging violations of, and seeking remedies pursuant to, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint made claims against Tesla and our CEO, Elon Musk, sought damages and attorney's fees on the basis of allegations that, among other things, Tesla and Mr. Musk made false and/or misleading representations and omissions, including with respect to the safety of Model S. This case was brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain persons who purchased Tesla's securities between August 19, 2013 and November 17, 2013. On September 26, 2014, the trial court, upon the motion of Tesla and Mr. Musk, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and thereafter issued a formal written order to that effect. The plaintiffs appealed from the trial court's order, and on December 21, 2016, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice. TESLA INC: Appeal in SolarCity Stockholder Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Tesla, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of a stockholder class action lawsuit against SolarCity remains pending. On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against SolarCity and two of its officers. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SolarCity's securities from March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2014. After a series of amendments to the original complaint, the District Court dismissed the amended complaint and entered a judgment in SolarCity's favor on August 9, 2016. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit," the Company said. TESLA INC: Stockholder Suit Pending in California ------------------------------------------------- Tesla, Inc. is defending against a class action lawsuit by a SolarCity stockholder in California, Tesla said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On August 15, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against SolarCity, two of its officers and a former officer. The complaint alleges that SolarCity made projections of future sales and installations that it failed to achieve and that these projections were fraudulent when made. The plaintiffs claim violations of federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SolarCity's securities from May 5, 2015 to February 16, 2016. "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit," the Company said. TESLA INC: Plaintiffs to File Amended Complaint in Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------- Tesla, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that plaintiffs intend to file an amended complaint in the litigation relating to the SolarCity acquisition. Between September 1, 2016 and October 5, 2016, seven lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by purported stockholders of Tesla challenging Tesla's acquisition of SolarCity. On October 10, the Court entered orders consolidating these lawsuits and appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. The consolidated lawsuit is captioned as In re Tesla Motors, Inc., Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 12711-VCS. It names as defendants the members of Tesla's board of directors and alleges, among other things, that the members of Tesla's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the SolarCity acquisition. It asserts claims derivatively on behalf of Tesla and directly on behalf of a putative class of Tesla stockholders. It seeks, among other relief, damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 27, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint. After receiving the motion, plaintiffs indicated that they intend to file an amended complaint rather than respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss. Tesla believes that the lawsuit is without merit. TEXAS FARMERS: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Pro Se Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied plaintiff Mike Hood's Request for Relief from Dismissal filed January 9, 2017, in the case captioned, MIKE HOOD, Plaintiff, v. TEXAS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE by Fire Underwriters Association, Attorney-in-Fact; FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE by Farmers Underwriters Association, Attorney-in-Fact; FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, KIM GARDETTO, BRUCE LITMAN, and DOES 1 to 50, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00151-JB-LF (D.N.M.). On April 14, 2016, the Court issued an order to show cause that required Mr. Hood to file a written explanation showing good cause why his class action complaint should not be dismissed. The order to show cause explained that as a pro se party, Mr. Hood could not bring claims on behalf of others. Mr. Hood's response to the order to show case was initially due no later than May 5, 2016. The Court issued a Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (PF&RD) recommending that the Court dismiss Mr. Hood's class action complaint without prejudice, and allowing him 21 days after adoption of the PF&RD to amend his complaint. The PF & RD was adopted by Judge Browning on August 31, 2016, and granted Mr. Hood 21 days to amend his complaint. Mr. Hood did not file an amended complaint. Accordingly, Judge Browning issued a Final Judgment on October 31, 2016, dismissing Mr. Hood's complaint with prejudice. More than two months after the case was closed, and six months from the deadline to respond to the order to show cause, Mr. Hood filed the instant motion requesting relief from judgment. In the motion, Mr. Hood asks that the Court reopen the case pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) explaining that that he did not intend to file the case as a class action. In her Proposed Findings and Recommendation dated April 19, 2017 available at https://is.gd/l8LNTj from Leagle.com, Magistrate Fashing found that Mr. Hood's request for relief from dismissal is without merit and recommend that the Court deny his motion to reopen this case. Mike Hood, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Fire Insurance Exchange is represented by Ryan M. Walters, Esq. -- rwalters@lrrc.com -- LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP TOYS 'R' US-DELAWARE: Salvan Seeks to Certify 2 Employee Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MARINA SALVAN, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOYS 'R' US-DELAWARE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-04138-JST (N.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify these classes: * All current and former California employees who received a wage statement from Defendant at any time during the period of time from June 17, 2015, through July 27, 2016 (the "Employee ID Class"); and * All current and former California employees who received an off-cycle wage statement from Defendant at any time during the period of time from June 17, 2015, through the present (the "Off-Cycle Wage Statement Class") Ms. Salvan also asks the Court to appoint her as class representative and her counsel as class counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on June 22, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZI1wtWm2 The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com kagnew@diversitylaw.com nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Strike Class Claims in TCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and its request to strike the class allegations in the case captioned, RENEE GOGGANS, RONALD FRENCH, and TIFFANY CAHILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16 C 2387 (N.D. Ill.). Renee Goggans, Ronald French, and Tiffany Cahill filed a class- action complaint against Transworld Systems, Inc., alleging that Transworld made debt-collection phone calls using an autodialer in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, and the Rosenthal Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1788. In January 2017, Goggans filed a second amended complaint adding French and Cahill as named plaintiffs. In count 1, plaintiffs allege that Transworld negligently violated the TCPA by calling them using an autodialer or artificial voice without their consent. Plaintiffs allege in count 2 that Transworld's violations of the TCPA were knowing or willful. In count 3, Goggans alone alleges that this same conduct violates the FDCPA and that Transworld further violated the FDCPA by calling her from a phone number designed to mimic her geographic location (i.e. with an area code from her geographic area). The three plaintiffs also seek to certify two classes, one for the claims brought under the TCPA and one for the claim brought under the FDCPA. The proposed TCPA class includes all persons whose cell phone number was called by Transworld using an autodialer or an artificial voice in the four years prior to the filing of the action, excluding those who Transworld called for emergency purposes. The proposed FDCPA class includes all persons who live in California and received a call from Transworld, in the year prior to the filing of this action, in which Transworld used an area code assigned to California. Transworld has moved for summary judgment on Goggans's claims in counts 1 and 2 and also asks the Court to strike the class claims asserted in the second amended complaint. Transworld argues that Goggans expressly consented to receiving phone calls on her cell phone and never revoked that consent. Transworld also argues that the class claims should be stricken because the issue of consent is an individual issue that defeats the predominance requirement for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 12, 2017 available at https://is.gd/JHsDJw from Leagle.com, Judge Kennelly concluded that (1) Goggans consented to receiving phone calls regarding payment for her medical services from Pacific Beach; (2) a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Goggans revoked her prior express consent; and (3) as to class allegations, the Curt denied motion to strike because plaintiffs have not filed a motion for class certification and therefore ruling on issues such as predominance would be premature and the second amended complaint includes two additional plaintiffs -- French and Cahill -- whom plaintiffs contend will also represent the TCPA class. Renee Goggans is represented by Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq. -- and - - Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq. -- ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC -- David M. Marco, Esq. -- dmarco@smithlaw.us -- and -- Larry Paul Smith, Esq. -- lsmith@smithmarco.com -- SMITHMARCO, P.C. Tiffany Cahill is represented by Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. -- and -- Jason A. Ibey, Esq. -- KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC -- David M. Marco, Esq. -- dmarco@smithlaw.us -- and -- Larry Paul Smith, Esq. -- lsmith@smithmarco.com -- SMITHMARCO, P.C. -- Joshua Branden Swigart, Esq. -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- and -- Yana A. Hart, Esq. -- yana@westcoastlitigation.com -- HYDE & SWIGART Transworld Systems, Inc. is represented by James Kevin Schultz, Esq. -- jschultz@sessions.legal -- Bryan C. Shartle, Esq. -- bshartle@sessions.legal -- Daniel W. Pisani, Esq. -- dpisani@sessions.legal -- and -- Morgan Ian Marcus, Esq. -- mmarcus@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC TRUECAR INC: "Rose" Class Suit Underway --------------------------------------- TrueCar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a class action lawsuit by Gordon Rose remains pending. In December 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Gordon Rose in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. The complaint asserts claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and violation of the California Business and Professions Code, based in part on allegations that we are operating in the State of California as an unlicensed automobile dealer and autobroker. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California consumers defined as "[a]ll California consumers who purchased an automobile by using TrueCar, Inc.'s price certificate during the applicable statute of limitations." On January 12, 2016, the Court entered an order staying all proceedings in the case pending an initial status conference, which was previously scheduled for April 13, 2016. On March 16, 2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. As a result of that reassignment, the initial status conference was rescheduled for and held on May 26, 2016. By stipulation, the stay of discovery has been continued until a second status conference, which was scheduled for October 12, 2016. On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff amended his complaint. The amended complaint continues to assert claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The amended complaint retains the same proposed class definition as the initial complaint. Like the initial complaint, the amended complaint seeks an award of unspecified damages, interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. On September 12, 2016, the Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. On October 12, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on the demurrer. On October 13, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's demurrer to the amended complaint, dismissing the unjust enrichment claim but declining to dismiss the balance of the claims at the demurrer stage of the litigation. At a status conference held on January 26, 2017, the Court ruled that discovery may proceed regarding matters related to class certification only at this time. "We believe the amended complaint is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the Company in this matter," the Company said. UNITED AIRLINES: Court Dismisses California Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Greg Mersol, Esq., at BakerHostetler, in an article for JD Supra, wrote that it is no secret that California is a desired and favorable forum for class action litigation. It is therefore not surprising that plaintiffs might try to take advantage of that forum even when the connection between employment and California could be questioned. But how far do California's tentacles reach? In Vidrio v. United Airlines, Case No. 2:15-CV-0985-PSG-MRW (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2017), the plaintiffs were United flight attendants who from time to time worked on flights that took off from or landed in one of eight airports in California. They asserted California state law claims based on the airline's alleged failure to provide California-compliant wage statements. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California certified a class consisting of United employees for whom United had applied California tax laws. From the outset, however, there were problems with the class members' connection to California. For example, the bulk of United's flights are outside of California and the average class member spent more than 80 percent of his or her time outside of California. In addition, United is headquartered in Chicago, and its largest airports are in Chicago, Houston and Newark, not California. United moved for summary judgment as to the entire class on the grounds that class members spent most of their working time outside of California. The court noted competing tests as to the application of California law, but found that the plaintiffs' claims failed under either standard. In looking at the time employees actually spent in the state and United's overall operations, the court observed that "United's ties to California are minimal relative to its overall business." It therefore granted summary judgment in United's favor. The Vidrio case illustrates two things. First, cases can still be won after class certification. Second, while California is indeed a hospitable forum for employment class action claims, the challenged employment must still have a sufficient California nexus. The bottom line: Plaintiffs must still demonstrate substantial California employment in order to take advantage of that state's wage and hour laws. UNITED COLLECTION: Directed to Produce Class Data ------------------------------------------------- District Judge Patricia A. Gaughan of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Class Data in the case captioned, Deborah Meredith, Plaintiff, v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16 CV 1102 (N.D. Ohio). Plaintiff Deborah Meredith filed this putative class action lawsuit on May 9, 2016, alleging that Defendant United Collection Bureau violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act(TCPA). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, a debt collection service, initiated multiple telephone calls to her cellular telephone in an attempt to collect a debt. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's practice of using autodialed, prerecorded-voice collection calls using contact information obtained from its clients or third-party skip-trace services foreseeably results in Defendant making numerous wrong number calls to the cell phones of people other than the debtor, in violation of the TCPA. She seeks to represent individuals who received autodialed, debt collection robocalls from Defendant to their cell phones without prior express consent. Plaintiff asked Defendant to write the program that would produce the class data of wrong number calls and associated account notes for the class period. In lieu of that, Plaintiff asked Defendant to produce the relevant portions of its database to Plaintiff so that her expert could write the program and conduct the query himself. She also proposed that Defendant forego production of the class information until after class certification and stipulate to numerosity under Rule 23. Defendant declined all of Plaintiff's proposals. Plaintiff then filed its motion to compel, asking the Court to compel Defendant "to produce those limited portions of its database that would permit Plaintiff to determine how many, and which, calls Defendant made to wrong numbers using its dialer or a prerecorded voice message." Defendant opposes Plaintiff's motion and has also filed a motion for protective order because Rule 34 limits the production of electronically stored information (ESI) to the manner in which it is "kept in the usual course of business." In her Memorandum of Opinion and Order dated April 13, 2017 available at https://is.gd/TIdgWI from Leagle.com, Judge Gaughan held that Plaintiff has met her burden of showing that the discovery she seeks is relevant and necessary to her claim and Defendant has not shown that there is good cause for issuing a protective order. Deborah Meredith is represented by David M. Marco, Esq. -- dmarco@smithlaw.us -- and -- Larry P. Smith, Esq. -- lsmith@smithmarco.com -- SMITH MARCO United Collection Bureau, Inc. is represented by Ethan G. Ostroff, Esq. -- ethan.ostroff@troutmansanders.com -- Lindsey B. Mann, Esq. -- amanda.mann@troutmansanders.com -- and -- Keith J. Barnett, Esq. -- keith.barnett@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS -- Jason P. Ferrante, Esq. -- JPFerrante@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN UNITED CONSUMER: Calif. Court Denies Dismissal of "DeClue" ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied Defendant United Consumer Financial Services Company's motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint (FAC) in the case captioned, TREVER DECLUE and KATHERINE DECLUE, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 16cv2833 JM (JMA)(S.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs filed the FAC on February 2, 2017, alleging two causes of action: (1) negligent violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA); and (2) knowing and/or willful violation of the TCPA. In the FAC, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant repeatedly called Mr. DeClue on his personal cell phone, which was included as part of Ms. DeClue's subscription with her service provider, after Mr. DeClue revoked consent to do so. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to make the calls. Plaintiffs claim that these calls invaded their privacy interests, resulted in cellular telephone charges, and generally "frustrated and distressed" them. On February 15, 2017, Defendant moved the court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), to dismiss the FAC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs lack standing because they have not suffered a concrete injury fairly traceable to the alleged TCPA violation. In his Order dated April 19, 2017 available at https://is.gd/p9v07d from Leagle.com, Judge Miller found that Plaintiffs have demonstrated each element of standing to bring the action and the causal connection between the injury and the actions complained of. Katherine Declue and Trever Declue are represented by Joshua Swigart, Esq. -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- HYDE & SWIGART -- and -- Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY 409 Camino del Rio South, Ste 101B San Diego, CA 92108 Tel:(619)222-7429 United Consumer Financial Services Company is represented by Michael Dominic Meuti, Esq. -- mmeuti@bakerlaw.com -- and -- Teresa Carey Chow, Esq. -- tchow@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Hill's De Novo Subclass Certified ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. David O. Carter grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification submitted in the lawsuit styled JENEE HILL v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:15-cv-00526-DOC-RNB (C.D. Cal.). The lawsuit is brought by Jenee Hill against UHIC alleging injury as a result of UHIC's policy of denying requests for lumbar artificial disc replacement surgery because it classifies the surgery as "unproven." The Plaintiff seeks certification this class: All persons covered under UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company health insurance policies issued to private employers or self-funded plans administered by UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company whose requests for lumbar artificial disc replacement surgery were denied at any time within the applicable statute of limitations, or whose requests for that surgery will be denied in the future, on the ground that lumbar artificial disc replacement is unproven. If the Court deems it necessary, Ms. Hill also offers two management subclasses: 1. All persons covered under UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company health insurance policies issued to private employers or self-funded plans administered by UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company whose requests for lumbar artificial disc replacement surgery were denied at any time within the applicable statute of limitations, or whose requests for that surgery will be denied in the future, on the ground that lumbar artificial disc replacement is unproven, and whose denials are subject to "de novo" review by the district court (the "[de novo subclass]"). 2. All persons covered under UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company health insurance policies issued to private employers or self-funded plans administered by UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company whose requests for lumbar artificial disc replacement surgery were denied at any time within the applicable statute of limitations, or whose requests for that surgery will be denied in the future, on the ground that lumbar artificial disc replacement is unproven, and whose denials are subject to an "abuse of discretion" review by the district court (the "[abuse of discretion subclass]"). Judge Carter certifies the de novo subclass as defined and otherwise denies the Motion. Judge Carter also denies the Plaintiff's request for additional discovery. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fysyj5aY USF REDDAWAY: Motion to Certify in "Moss" Suit Under Submission --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. John A. Kronstadt has taken under submission the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit titled Robert Moss, et al. v. USF Reddaway, Inc., Case No. 5:15- cv-01541-JAK-FFM (C.D. Cal.). The civil minutes states that the status conference is held in the case. Counsel report that they participated in mediation with a private neutral about one year ago but have not had discussions since that time. The motion hearing is held, and the Court states its tentative views and is inclined to grant the Plaintiffs' Motion. Counsel address the Court. The Court said it takes the Motion under submission and a ruling will be issued. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qcnZ9qSl The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig J. Achermann, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 The Defendant is represented by: Ronald J. Holland, II, Esq. Pankit J. Doshi, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Telephone: (415) 836-2500 Facsimile: (415) 836-2501 E-mail: ron.holland@dlapiper.com pankit.doshi@dlapiper.com VALERO MKTG: Water Contamination Suit Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Hilda Tagle of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand in the case captioned, MD HAYNES, INC.; dba CICI'S PIZZA #88 (AYERS), et al, Plaintiffs, v. VALERO MARKETING AND SUPPLY CO., et al, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-6 (S.D. Tex.). The is a putative class action arising out of a water contamination event in the City of Corpus Christi, Texas that resulted in a four-day ban on the use of municipal tap water. On December 15, 2016, Plaintiffs, a group of Corpus Christi individuals and businesses, filed suit in Court at Law No. 1 in Nueces County, Texas against Defendants Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions, Inc. (Ergon) and a number of affiliated Valero entities (Valero, and collectively with Ergon, Defendants), alleging that their negligent conduct caused the Contamination Event, and seeking a temporary restraining order and damages. They assert state law claims against Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, strict liability for ultra- hazardous activity, public and private nuisance, and trespass. And they seek to file their claims "on behalf of the natural or artificial persons or entities served or otherwise dependent on water provided by the Corpus Christi municipal water supply who were affected by Defendants' actions or omissions which resulted in the contamination of the water supply and consequent tap water usage ban, governed by Texas law." On January 10, 2017, Ergon filed a notice of removal in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441, 1446, and 1453, citing 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), as the basis for removal providing this Court with subject matter jurisdiction. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motion to remand; Plaintiffs' motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery; Defendant Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions, Inc.'s motion for leave to file objections to Plaintiffs' remand evidence solely on the basis of its allegation that Plaintiffs "have failed to allege specific facts regarding the conduct of any local defendant"; and Plaintiffs' opposed motion to dismiss their claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). In her Order dated April 19, 2017 available at https://is.gd/U2Qvkj rom Leagle.com, Judge Tagle held that Plaintiffs have demonstrated with reasonable certainty that it should prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction over their claims. MD Haynes, Inc., et al. are represented by Robert C. Hilliard, Esq. -- bobh@hmglawfirm.com -- John Brandon Martinez, Esq. -- joe@hmglawfirm.com -- Marion M. Reilly, Esq. -- marion@hmglawfirm.com -- and -- Robert H. George, II, Esq. -- rob@hmglawfirm.com -- HILLIARD MUNOZ GONZALES LLP Valero Marketing and Supply Co., et al. are represented by James T. Clancy, Jr., Esq. -- jclancy@branscombpc.com -- BRANSCOMB & PC -- Mikal C. Watts, Esq. -- mcwatts@wattsguerra.com -- WATTS GUERRA LLP Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions, Inc. is represented by Russell Carter Lewis, Esq. -- russell.lewis@bakerbotts.com -- Jacob Scott Janoe, Esq. -- jacob.janoe@bakerbotts.com -- and -- Louis E. Layrisson, III, Esq. -- louis.layrisson@bakerbotts.com -- BAKER BOTTS LLP -- Michael D. Hudlow, Jr., Esq. -- mhudlow@hdr-law.com -- and -- Robin Clay Hoblit, Esq. -- choblit@hdr-law.com -- HOBLIT DARLING RALLS HERNANDEZ & HUDLOW, LLP VECTRUS INC: Intends to File Supreme Court Petition --------------------------------------------------- Vectrus, Inc. said it intends to file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, according to the Company's Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The company said, "Among these proceedings, we are defending a purported class action employment lawsuit that was initiated in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in April 2010 against our former parent by individuals who worked on a particular contract in Kuwait after April 12, 2009. The plaintiffs are alleging a breach of employment contract by our former parent due to an alleged violation of Kuwait labor law. On November 3, 2016, following an interlocutory appeal by Vectrus, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision certifying a class of plaintiffs. Vectrus continues to vigorously defend the case, and plans to file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on the class certification decision in March 2017." Vectrus, Inc. offers facility and logistics services and information technology and network communications services. Its primary customer is the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) with a high concentration in the U.S. Army. WALT DISNEY PARKS: Perrero Moves to Certify Discrimination Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled LEONARDO PERRERO, et al. v. WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., Case No. 6:16-cv-02144- CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla.), ask the Court to certify this proposed Race Discrimination and National Origin Discrimination Class: All American-born or naturalized American citizen former employees of Defendant who were issued notices of termination in October 214 who were all subsequently terminated in January 2015 and replaced by an Indian national. The putative class action is brought for alleged unlawful national origin discrimination and race discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. In the Motion, the Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Plaintiff Leonardo Perrero as Class Representative, and appoint the law firm of Wenzel, Fenton, Cabassa, P.A., as class counsel. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to allow them to notify the Class members via a Court-approved notice. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N3tLOfbV The Plaintiffs are represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 379-2565 Facsimile: 813-229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com - and - Sara Blackwell, Esq. THE BLACKWELL FIRM 2243 Palm Terrace Sarasota, FL 34321 Telephone: (941) 961-3046 E-mail: Sara@theblackwellfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Mary Ruth Houston, Esq. Glennys Ortega Rubin, Esq. SHUTTS & BROWN, LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Orlando, FL 32801 E-mail: mhouston@shutts.com grubin@shutts.com WATTS REGULATOR: Settlement in "Klug" Granted Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Joseph F. Bataillion of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted final approval of settlement agreement and attorneys' fees and costs in the case captioned, CURTIS KLUG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; LAWRENCE NOVER, and NELS ROE, Plaintiffs, v. WATTS REGULATOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 8:15CV61 (D. Neb.). On December 7, 2016, the court entered its Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; Certification of Settlement Class; and Approval of Form and Content of Proposed Notice (Preliminary Approval Order). The Final Fairness Hearing was held on April 12, 2017, during which the court heard plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Motion for Final Approval) and plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. In his Memorandum and Order dated April 13, 2017 available at https://is.gd/r2Y87D from Leagle.com, Judge Bataillion held that (1) plaintiffs have shown that the law firms of Berger & Montague, Greg Coleman Law PC, CaffertyClobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, and McCuneWright LLP (Class Counsel) represented them as well as the plaintiffs in the companion class action case; (2) Plaintiffs have shown Class Counsel achieved an extremely successful recovery that confers a substantial benefit to the settlement class; (3) plaintiffs' motion for an award of fees which is within the amount that courts typically award in similar cases and is awarded $1,200,000 of attorneys' fees; and (4) Plaintiffs have also shown that Class Counsel incurred a combined total of approximately $41,689.58 in costs and expenses are reasonable and should be reimbursed and service award of $5,000. Lawrence Nover, et al. are represented by Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. -- bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- and -- Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. -- dherrera@caffertyclobes.com -- CAFFERTY, CLOBES LAW FIRM -- Edward A. Wallace, Esq. -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- WEXLER, WALLACE LAW FIRM -- Glen L. Abramson, Esq. -- gabramson@bm.net -- Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq. -- josterwise@bm.net -- and -- Shanon J. Carson, Esq. -- scarson@bm.net -- BERGER, MONTAGUE LAW FIRM Watts Regulator Company is represented by David S. MacCuish, Esq. -- david.maccuish@alston.com -- and -- Evan W. Sippel-Feldman, Esq. -- evan.sippel-feldman@alston.com -- ALSTON, BIRD LAW FIRM - - Jodi D. Oley, Esq. -- joley@eckertseamans.com -- and -- Keith E. Smith, Esq. -- ksmith@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT, SEAMANS LAW FIRM WATTS REGULATOR: Settlement in "Sharp" Granted Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted final approval in the case captioned, DURWIN SHARP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; JOSEPH PONZO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; KATHRYN MEYERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; and JOSHUA WHIPP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. WATTS REGULATOR CO., Defendant, Case No. 8:16CV200 (D. Neb.). On December 7, 2016, the court entered its Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; Certification of Settlement Class; and Approval of Form and Content of Proposed Notice (Preliminary Approval Order). The Final Fairness Hearing was held on April 12, 2017, during which the court heard plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Motion for Final Approval) and plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. In his Memorandum and Order dated April 13, 2017 available at https://is.gd/rEAPsD from Leagle.com, Judge Bataillon held that (1) plaintiffs have shown that the law firms of Berger & Montague, Greg Coleman Law PC, CaffertyClobes Meriwether &Sprengel LLP, and McCuneWright LLP (Class Counsel) represented them as well as the plaintiffs in the companion class action case; (2) Plaintiffs have shown Class Counsel achieved an extremely successful recovery that confers a substantial benefit to the settlement class; (3) plaintiffs' motion for an award of fees which is within the amount that courts typically award in similar cases and is awarded $3,000,000 of attorneys' fees; and (4) Plaintiffs have also shown that Class Counsel incurred a combined total of approximately $20,844.95 in costs and expenses are reasonable and should be reimbursed and service award of $5,000. Joseph Ponzo, et al. are represented by Adam A. Edwards, Esq. -- adam@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Lisa A. White, Esq. -- lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- and -- Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW FIRM -- Amy E. Keller, Esq. -- aek@wexlerwallace.com -- and -- Edward A. Wallace, Esq. -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- WEXLER, WALLACE LAW FIRM -- Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. -- bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- and -- Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. -- dherrera@caffertyclobes.com -- CAFFERTY, CLOBES LAW FIRM -- Joseph B. Kenney Esq. -- jbk@mccunewright.com -- and - - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. -- jgs@mccunewright.com -- MCCUNE, WRIGHT LAW FIRM -- Katrina Carroll, Esq. -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- and -- Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE, DEPALMA LAW FIRM -- Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. -- psheehan@whatleykallas.com -- WHATLEY, KALLAS LAW FIRM Watts Regulator Co. is represented by David S. MacCuish, Esq. -- david.maccuish@alston.com -- and -- Todd Benoff, Esq. -- todd.benoff@alston.com -- ALSTON, BIRD LAW FIRM -- Jodi D. Oley, Esq. -- joley@eckertseamans.com -- and -- Keith E. Smith, Esq. -- ksmith@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT, SEAMANS LAW FIRM WDE GROUP: "Smith" Action Claims Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------- Robert Smith, Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff, v. WDE Group, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation, Jamison Kuhn Enterprises, Inc., a Ohio Corporation and Jamison M. Kuhn, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00143, (E.D. Tenn., April 14, 2017), seeks compensation for unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses and disbursements, reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. WDE Group, Inc. and Jamison Kuhn Enterprises, Inc. are in the business of delivering packages and parcels for Federal Express where Smith worked as a driver covering Knoxville, Tennessee area. Defendant is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com WELLS FARGO: Court OKs $1.4MM Fees to Class Counsel --------------------------------------------------- District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval to the class settlement in the case captioned, LATARA BIAS, ERIC BREAUX, and TROY LYNNE MORRISON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a national association, Defendants, Case No. 4:12-cv-00664-YGR (N.D. Cal.). On December 17, 2015, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court amended the class definition on March 7, 2016 of "All residents of the United States of America who had a residential mortgage serviced by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., or its subsidiaries or divisions, and who paid for one or more Broker's Price Opinions charged by Wells Fargo (through PAS), for an amount greater than the amount Wells Fargo (through PAS) paid a third party vendor for the corresponding (BPO), from May 6, 2005 through July 1, 2010." Plaintiffs Latara Bias, Eric Breaux and Troy Lynne Morrison as Class Representatives, and appoints the law firms of Baron & Budd, P.C.; Cossich, Sumich, Parsiola and Taylor; and KingsmillRiess, LLC as Class Counsel. The Court entered its Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice, setting forth the previously certified Class for settlement purposes only and preliminarily approved Notice of Settlement to the Class. The Settlement includes the payment of $50,000,000 in cash, on which interest has accrued, and that Settlement Class Members will benefit from the Settlement. Pending before the Court if the motion for final approval of the Settlement. In her Order and Judgment dated April 13, 2017 available at https://is.gd/oSAS9p from Leagle.com, Judge Rogers found that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The proposed awarded attorneys' fees of $12.5 million, $1.5 million in reimbursement of expenses and $10,000 for service award are fair and reasonable. Both shall be drawn from the Settlement Fund and allocated by Class Counsel in a manner which in their good faith judgment reflects each counsel's contribution to the institution, prosecution, and resolution of the Action. Troy Lynne Morrison, et al. are represented by Daniel Alberstone, Esq. -- dalbertstone@baronbudd.com -- Mark Philip Pifko, Esq. -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- and -- Roland K. Tellis, Esq. -- BARON BUDD, P.C. -- Charles B. Colvin, Esq. -- ccolvin@kingsmillreiss.com -- and -- Mark Elliot Kaufman, Esq. -- kaufman@kaufmankahn.com -- KAUFMAN AND KAHN LLP -- John Van Nguyen, Esq. -- jvannguyen@kingsmillriess.com -- and -- Marguerite K. Kingsmill, Esq. -- mkingsmill@kingsmillriess.com -- KINGSMILLRIESS, LLC Wells Fargo & Company, et al. are represented by Mark Douglas Lonergan, Esq. -- mdl@severson.com -- Kalama M. Lui-Kwan, Esq. -- kml@severson.com -- Michael Jan Steiner, Esq. -- mjs@severson.com -- and -- Rebecca SnavelySaelao, Esq. -- rss@severson.com -- SEVERSON & WERSON, P.C. WESTERN RANGE: Nevada Court Dismisses Peruvian Workers' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Robert C. Jones of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted the motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in the case captioned, ABEL CANTARO CASTILLO et al., Plaintiffs, v. WESTERN RANGE ASSOCIATION et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00237-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev.). The case is a putative wage and hour class action arising primarily from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay their employees minimum wages under Article 15, Section 16 of the Nevada Constitution. Plaintiffs Abel Cantaro Castillo (Cantaro) and Alcides Inga Ramos (Inga) are Peruvian citizens lawfully admitted to the United States under the Department of Labor's (DOL) H-2A guestworker visa program and were employed as range sheep herders, engaged to be on call twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week. Cantaro filed the action against El Tejon, Gragirena, and WRA on May 3, 2016, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the MWA, failure to pay wages due upon termination under NRS Chapter 608, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. Defendants move to dismiss filed motions to dismiss the FAC. Based on the absence of any claim expressly arising under federal law, Defendants seek dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the alternative, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to state a plausible claim for relief, and request dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In his Order dated April 13, 2017 available at https://is.gd/LoAriS from Leagle.com, Judge Jones held that the case does not raise a substantial question of federal law, and the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. The Court dismissed the FAC in its entirety with leave to amend. Plaintiffs shall have thirty days from the date of the order within which to file a second amended complaint remedying, if possible, the defects. Abel Cantaro Castillo is represented by Brian C. Corman, Esq. -- bcorman@cohenmilstein.com -- and -- Christine E. Webber, Esq. -- cwebber@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL -- and -- Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah Lin Jones, Esq. Mark R. Thierman, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK, LLP 7287 Lakeside Dr. Reno, NV 89511-76520 Tel:(775)284-1500 Alcides Inga Ramos is represented by Christine E. Webber, Esq. -- cwebber@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL Western Range Association is represented by Joshua M. Woodbury, Esq. -- jwoodbury@woodburnandwedge.com -- and -- Ellen Jean Winograd, Esq. -- ewinograd@woodburnandwedge.com -- WOODBURN AND WEDGE Mountain Plains Agricultural Service is represented by Elizabeth Kline Dorminey, Esq. -- ekd@wimlaw.com -- and -- James Larry Stine, Esq. -- jls@wimlaw.com -- WIMBERLY, LAWSON, STECKEL, SCHNEIDER & STINE, PC -- Enrique Raul Schaerer, Esq. -- eschaerer@mcllawfirm.com -- and -- Paul J. Anderson, Esq. -- panderson@mcllawfirm.com -- MAUPIN, COX &LEGOY WESTERN REFINING: NTI Merger Litigation in Early Stages ------------------------------------------------------- Western Refining, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the litigation related to the merger with Northern Tier Energy LP is in the earliest stages of litigation. The Company said, "We own 100% of the limited partner interest in Northern Tier Energy LP ("NTI") and 100% of its general partner. We entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of December 21, 2015 (the "NTI Merger Agreement"), with Western Acquisition Co, LLC, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Western, NTI and Northern Tier Energy GP LLC, to acquire all of NTI's outstanding common units not already held by us (the "NTI Merger"). On June 23, 2016, following the approval of the NTI Merger Agreement by NTI common unitholders, all closing conditions to the NTI Merger were satisfied, and the NTI Merger was successfully completed. We incurred $500 million of additional secured indebtedness under our amended term loan credit agreement to partially fund the NTI Merger consideration." "On August 24, 2016, an alleged NTI unitholder ("Plaintiff") filed a purported class action lawsuit against Western, NTI, NTI GP, members of the NTI GP board of directors at the time of the NTI Merger, Evercore Group, L.L.C. ("Evercore"), and MergerCo (collectively, "Defendants") (the "NTI Merger Litigation"). The NTI Merger Litigation appears to challenge the adequacy of disclosures made in connection with the NTI Merger. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and attorneys' fees. The NTI Merger Litigation is in the earliest stages of litigation. Western believes the NTI Merger Litigation is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it." WESTERN REFINING: Seeks Dismissal of Tesoro Merger Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Western Refining, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company and other defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Tesoro Merger Litigation. The Company said, "On November 16, 2016, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Tesoro Merger Agreement") with Tesoro, Tahoe Merger Sub 1, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Tesoro ("Merger Sub 1"), and Tahoe Merger Sub 2, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of Tesoro ("Merger Sub 2"), pursuant to which Merger Sub 1 will merge with and into the Company (the "First Merger," and, if a second merger election as discussed below is not made, the "Tesoro Merger"), with the Company surviving the First Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Tesoro. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Tesoro Merger Agreement, upon consummation of the First Merger, each share of our common stock (each, a "Western Share") issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the First Merger (excluding Western Shares owned by the Company or Tesoro or any of their respective direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries that are not held on behalf of third parties) will be converted into and become exchangeable for, at the election of the holder of such Western Share, either (a) $37.30 in cash or (b) 0.4350 shares of common stock in each case without interest. Western stockholders as of the close of business on February 10, 2017, the record date, have been invited to attend a special meeting of Western stockholders on March 24, 2017 at 10:00 am Mountain Standard Time, to consider and vote upon a proposal to adopt the Tesoro Merger Agreement and certain other matters related to the Tesoro Merger. On February 16, 2017, Tesoro filed with the SEC, and the SEC declared effective, a registration statement on Form S-4 (Reg. No. 333- 215080), containing a joint proxy statement/prospectus of Tesoro and Western, which proxy statement/prospectus was first mailed to Tesoro and Western stockholders on February 17, 2017." As of February 8, 2017, Western was named as defendants in five substantially similar purported stockholder class actions by Western stockholders (the "Tesoro Merger Litigation"). The suits challenge the adequacy of the disclosures made in connection with the Tesoro Merger. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the merger until additional information relating to the transaction is disclosed. The Tesoro Merger Litigation is in the earliest stages of litigation. Western believes the Tesoro Merger Litigation is without merit, intends to vigorously defend against it and on February 23, 2017, Western and the members of its board of directors filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint in the consolidated proceedings. WILLIS TOWERS: Still Awaits Court Decision on Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement of lawsuits related to Stanford Financial Group has been held and the Court has reserved its decision. The Company has been named as a defendant in 15 similar lawsuits relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group ('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these actions generally allege that the defendants actively and materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford client investors. The complaints further allege that these letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit. The 15 actions are as follows: * Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA'). On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green, Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N ('Roland'). On August 31, 2011, the court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with prejudice under SLUSA. On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i) dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011, the court entered a final judgment in the action. On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice, et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N, which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants- appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18, 2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's reversal in Troice. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted our petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision. On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order. On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs' request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss, but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order; (b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on April 20, 2015. On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion. On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions entered into a settlement in principle that is described in more detail below. * Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085, was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred, for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML'). The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni. On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. * Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed individually and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice. * Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300 million, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which motion was denied by the court on September 16, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action discussed below, and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert. * Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion to dismiss decisions in the Troice action discussed above and the Janvey action discussed below. Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion. * Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585, was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors, individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the court's stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the court remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court and denied the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague. * MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately $4 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the parties stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County)) and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in accordance with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague (discussed above)), which stipulation was 'so ordered' by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur. * Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) alleging violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1) Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million; (2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5 million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of 11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $12.5 million. On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases to the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified the JPML of the pendency of these related actions. On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying and administratively closing that action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20, 2013, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer of the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go forward. On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria. On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively, remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015 and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or Barbar. On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21, 2015, the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala- Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by the court. * Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S. Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii) on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege claims under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of collective losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion. On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5 order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the court granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the December 5 order. On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20, 2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey scheduling order. On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. * Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 201652115, was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford investor against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate in Texas state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages of less than $100,000, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks damages in excess of $1 million. The defendants have not yet responded to the amended complaint in Martin. * Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:16- cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more than 300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $135 million, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On November 10, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which, among other things, added several more Stanford investors as plaintiffs. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Abel. The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit. In the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of factors as required by accounting standards. On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in principle for $120 million relating to this litigation, and the Company has increased its provisions by $50 million. The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford, which may not be given. Therefore, the ultimate resolution of these matters may differ from the amount provided for. The Company continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Settlement On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet, relating to the Stanford litigation matter. The Company agreed to the Settlement Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense and uncertainty of further litigation. In particular, if the settlement and the related bar orders described below are approved by the Court and become effective, the Company (a newly- combined firm) would be able to conduct itself with the bar orders' protection from the continued overhang of matters alleged to have occurred approximately a decade ago. Further, the Settlement Term Sheet provided that the parties understood and agreed that there is no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company. The Company expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the Stanford litigation. Specifically, the parties to the Settlement Term Sheet are Ralph S. Janvey (in his capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the 'Receiver') for The Stanford Financial Group and its affiliated entities in receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')), the Official Stanford Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz, Paula Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal, Daniel Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A. (collectively, 'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc. and Willis of Colorado, Inc. (collectively, 'Defendants'), on the other hand. Under the terms of the Settlement Term Sheet, the parties agreed in principle to settle and dismiss the Janvey and Troice actions (collectively, the 'Actions') and all current or future claims arising from or related to Stanford. If the settlement, including the bar orders described below, is approved by the Court and is not subject to further appeal, Willis North America Inc. will make a one-time cash payment of $120 million to the Receiver to be distributed to all Stanford investors who have claims recognized by the Receiver pursuant to the distribution plan in place at the time the payment is made. The Settlement Term Sheet also provided the parties' agreement to seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not. The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all Stanford- related litigation described above, and not just the Actions, including any pending matters and any actions that may be brought in the future. Final Court approval of these bar orders is a condition of the settlement. On or about August 31, 2016, the parties to the settlement signed a formal Settlement Agreement memorializing the terms of the settlement as originally set forth in the Settlement Term Sheet. On September 7, 2016, the plaintiffs in the Troice and Janvey actions filed with the Court a motion to approve the settlement. On October 19, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. Several of the plaintiffs in the other actions above have objected to the settlement. A hearing to consider final approval of the settlement was held on January 20, 2017 and the Court reserved decision. The Actions are stayed pending final approval of the settlement. The timing of any final decision is subject to the discretion of the Court and any appeal, and the Court may decide not to approve the settlement. WILLIS TOWERS: Court to Consider Motions to Decertify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the court in the lawsuit by Elma Sanchez, et al. has agreed to consider potential motions by Towers Perrin and CalPERS to decertify or modify the class. On August 6, 2013, three individual plaintiffs filed a putative class action suit against the California Public Employees' Retirement System ('CalPERS') in Los Angeles County Superior Court. On January 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added as defendants several members of CalPERS' Board of Administration and three Legacy Towers Watson entities, Towers Watson & Co., Towers Perrin, and Tillinghast-Towers Perrin ('Towers Perrin'). Plaintiffs' claims all relate to a self-funded, non-profit Long Term Care Program that CalPERS established in 1995 (the 'LTC Program'). Plaintiffs' claims seek unspecified damages allegedly resulting from CalPERS' 2012 decision to implement in 2015 and 2016 an 85 percent increase in the premium rates of certain of the long term care policies it issued between 1995 and 2004 (the '85% Increase'). The amended complaint alleges claims against CalPERS for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. It also includes a single cause of action against Towers Perrin for professional negligence relating to actuarial services Towers Perrin provided to CalPERS relating to the LTC Program between 1995 and 2004. Plaintiffs principally allege that CalPERS mismanaged the LTC Program and its investment assets in multiple respects and breached its contractual and fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and other class members by impermissibly imposing the 85% Increase to make up for investment losses. Plaintiffs also allege that Towers Perrin recommended inadequate initial premium rates at the outset of the LTC Program and used unspecified inappropriate assumptions in its annual valuations for CalPERS. Plaintiffs claim that Towers Perrin's allegedly negligent acts and omissions, prior to the end of its retainer in 2004, contributed to the need for the 85% Increase. In May 2014, the court denied the motions to dismiss filed by CalPERS and Towers Perrin addressed to the sufficiency of the complaint. On January 28, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The certified class as currently defined includes those long term care policy holders whose policies were "subject to" the 85% Increase. The court thereafter set an October 2, 2017 trial date. In May 2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. The court agreed that Towers Perrin may file a motion for summary judgment which was initially scheduled to be heard on February 3, 2017. The hearing date was thereafter moved to March 8, 2017, and the motion at this time has been fully briefed. In the event summary judgment is denied, the court has also agreed to consider potential motions by Towers Perrin and CalPERS to decertify or modify the class. Based on all of the information to date, and given the stage of the matter, the Company is currently unable to provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously. WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Class Certification Motion Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Windstream Holdings, Inc. and Windstream Services, LLC said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Plaintiff's motion for class certification remains pending. On February 9, 2015, a putative stockholder filed a Shareholder Class Action Complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court"), captioned Doppelt v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10629-VCN, against the Company and its Board of Directors. This complaint was accompanied by a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the spin-off. The Court, ruling from the bench on February 19, 2015 - the day before a special meeting of stockholders was scheduled to vote on a reverse stock split and amended governing documents (the "Proposals") - denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, reasoning that much of the information sought by plaintiff had been disclosed in public filings available on the United States Securities and Exchange Commission's website, the Windstream Holdings' Board of Directors was in no way conflicted, and while approval of the Proposals would facilitate the spin-off, approval was not necessary to effect the spin-off. On March 16, 2015, plaintiff, joined by a second putative Windstream stockholder, filed an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company and its Board concerning Windstream's disclosures and seeking to rescind the spin-off and unspecified monetary damages. On February 5, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court dismissed Windstream, and plaintiffs' demand to rescind the spin- off, but otherwise denied the motion. On or about January 27, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification, and Windstream has responded to the motion. Windstream Holdings, Inc. ("Windstream Holdings") is a publicly traded holding company incorporated in the state of Delaware on May 23, 2013, and the parent of Windstream Services, LLC ("Windstream Services"), a Delaware limited liability company organized on March 1, 2004. XENCOR INC: Settlement in "DePinto" Suit Has Final OK ----------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Andre G Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery entered a final order and judgment on April 4, 2017, approving the settlement of the case, MICHAEL DEPINTO, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHN S. STAFFORD, III, BASSIL I. DAHIYAT, JONATHAN FLEMING, ATUL SARAN, HAROLD R. WERNER, BRUCE L.A. CARTER, CHARLES STEWART, and DONALD C. FOSTER, Defendants, IN RE XENCOR, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION, Consol. C.A. No. 10742-CB (Del. Ch.). Xencor, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that on March 3, 2015, a verified class action complaint, captioned DePinto v. John S. Stafford, et al., C.A. No. 10742, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of the Company's current and former directors alleging cause of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Invalidity of Director and Stockholder Consents. In general, the complaint alleged that the plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent were shareholders of the Company during the recapitalization and certain related transactions that the Company underwent in 2013 and that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in the course of approving that series of transactions. It also challenged as invalid certain corporate acts taken in the 2013 time period. On June 10, 2015, the Company filed a Verified Petition for Relief under Del. C. Section 205 (the 205 Petition) related to the corporate acts challenged in the complaint. The defendants filed an answer to the class action complaint on June 22, 2015. On July 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the 205 Petition with the class action, joined the Company as a defendant and ordered it to file the claims in the 205 Petition as counter-claims in the class action, which the Company has done. On August 11, 2015, the Company filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Counter-Claim, along with the proposed Amended Counter- Claim and related documents. On October 5, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Partial Settlement and related documents disclosing a settlement of the invalidity claims addressed in the complaint, the counter-claim and the proposed amended counter- claim including a request by plaintiff's counsel for reimbursement of legal fees up to $950,000. On October 7, 2015, Xencor filed the Amended Counter-Claim and the related documents. On December 14, 2015, the Court entered an Order and Partial Final Judgement approving the settlement of the invalidity claims, validating each corporate act challenged in the complaint, dismissing with prejudice Count II of the complaint (the invalidity claims) and granting plaintiff's counsel a fee award of $950,000. We have paid the plaintiff's legal award cost of $950,000 net of insurance proceeds which has been reflected as a charge in our 2015 operations. On September 27, 2016, the parties engaged involuntary mediation and agreed to settle the complaint's remaining claims for a total of $2.375 million to the class certified by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The settlement, which is subject to approval by the Court, was reached without any party admitting wrongdoing. Under the terms of the settlement, no payments shall be made to the plaintiffs by the Company or any of the defendants in the lawsuit other than payments covered by the Company's insurance. The Court scheduled a Settlement Hearing for April 4, 2017. The Company said, "We continue to recognize legal costs related to the litigation as incurred and offset any insurance proceeds when approved and issued. For the period ended December 31, 2016 no amount of loss related to the settlement has been accrued. As of December 31, 2016, we have reported the outstanding settlement amount of $2.355 million as a payable and also reflected a receivable of the same amount for the insurance coverage that will fund the remaining settlement costs." Xencor is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing engineered monoclonal antibody therapeutics to treat severe and life-threatening diseases with unmet medical needs. YELP INC: 9th Circuit Appeal Remains Pending -------------------------------------------- Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Plaintiffs' appeal in the federal securities class action remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company said, "In August 2014, two putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. The lawsuits allege violations of the Exchange Act by us and our officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business and operations between October 29, 2013 and April 3, 2014. These cases were subsequently consolidated and, in January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Following the court's dismissal of the consolidated complaint on April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on May 21, 2015." "On November 24, 2015, the court dismissed the first amended complaint with prejudice, and entered judgment in our favor on December 28, 2015. The plaintiffs have appealed this judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit." YELP INC: $550,000 Settlement Amount Has Been Paid -------------------------------------------------- Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the $550,000 settlement amount in a class action lawsuit by former Eat24 employees has been paid. According to Yelp, "on April 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by former Eat24 employees in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County, naming as defendants us and Eat24. The lawsuit asserts that we failed to permit meal and rest periods for certain current and former employees working as Eat24 customer support specialists, and alleges violations of the California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief." "On May 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. In January 2016, we reached a preliminary agreement to settle this matter, which the court preliminarily approved on June 27, 2016. The settlement received final court approval on December 5, 2016 and the $550 thousand settlement amount was paid on February 10, 2017." YELP INC: $0.2 Million Settlement Has Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------- Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the $550 thousand settlement amount in a class action lawsuit by former Eat24 employees has been paid. Yelp said, "On June 24, 2015, a former Eat24 sales employee filed a lawsuit, on behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former Eat24 sales employees, against Eat24 in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County. The lawsuit alleges that Eat24 failed to pay required wages, including overtime wages, allow meal and rest periods and maintain proper records, and asserts causes of action under the California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and penalties in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief." "On August 3, 2015, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. "In January 2016, we reached a preliminary agreement to settle this matter for payments in the aggregate amount of up to approximately $0.2 million, which the court preliminarily approved on August 29, 2016. The settlement received final court approval on February 1, 2017." YZ COMMERCE: "Sloatman" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- Lala Sloatman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. YZ Commerce LLC, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02784 (C.D. Cal., April 12, 2017), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions as well as invasion of privacy. Defendant, representing itself as "CreditFix.com," contacted Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in an attempt to promote its services. YZ used an automatic telephone dialing system for such. [BN] 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 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com ZIMMER BIOMET: Glancy Prongay Appointed as Lead Counsel ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00815 (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Theresa L Springmann on April 3, 2017, appointed Rajesh Shah, Matt Brierly and Eric Levy as Lead Plaintiffs. The Court also appointed Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Lead Counsel for the Class and Katz & Korin, PC as Liaison Counsel. The Court noted that Defendants have reserved the right to challenge class certification at an appropriate time. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. is defending against the "Shah" class action lawsuit, Zimmer said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said, "On December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al.), naming us and three of our officers as defendants. The complaint relates to a putative class action on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between September 7, 2016 and October 31, 2016. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose that supply chain issues led to a decrease in order fulfillment rates in the third quarter of 2016 and would cause us to lower our revenue and earnings guidance for full-year 2016. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief. We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and we and the individual defendants intend to defend it vigorously." Lead counsel may be reached at: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 432-1495 E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com Liaison counsel may be reached at: Offer Korin, Esq. KATZ & KORIN PC 334 N Senate Ave Indianapolis, IN 46204 Tel: 317-464-1100 Defendants are represented by: Paul A Wolfla FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS 300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Tel: 317 237 1241 Fax: 317 237 1000 E-mail: paul.wolfla@FaegreBD.com - and - Troy S Brown, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Tel: 215.963.5214 Fax: 215.963.5001 E-mail: troy.brown@morganlewis.com Zimmer Biomet is a global leader in musculoskeletal healthcare. It designs, manufactures and markets orthopaedic reconstructive products; sports medicine, biologics, extremities and trauma products; office based technologies; spine, craniomaxillofacial and thoracic products; dental implants; and related surgical products. * Breaching Glass Ceiling Through Individual & Class Action Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Bachman, Esq., at Zuckerman Law, in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that you think your employer has a glass ceiling and discriminated against you when you were passed over for a recent promotion. Whether your company overlooked you because of your gender, race, national origin, or sexual orientation, an important issue is if the company has also discriminated against other employees like you (for example female, African-American, Muslim, LGBT). Figuring out whether your potential case should be an individual versus a class action case is a key first step. Glass ceiling/promotion discrimination and other types of employment discrimination cases can be litigated either as an individual case or as a class action. Significant differences between these two options exist. So if you believe your employer has discriminated against other employees like you, it's important to talk with an experienced lawyer who can advise you about the pros and cons of a class action versus an individual case. The basic difference between an individual versus a class action glass ceiling/promotion discrimination case An individual case involves one employee (Jane Smith) suing her employer for glass ceiling/promotion discrimination. The way the company treats its other employees will be relevant in an individual case. But the focus of the case and the available remedies will remain on what happened to Jane Smith. Individual lawsuits are far more common than class action lawsuits. Class action cases, on the other hand, involve a lead plaintiff(s) who, along with the lawyer for the class, represent the interests of a larger group of class members who have been harmed by the company in some common way. Class actions can range in size from 20-30 individuals to thousands of people. Individual glass ceiling discrimination case settles for USD300,000 Although women and other protected groups have made significant strides in the workplace over the last few decades, recent individual and class action cases illustrate the stubborn barriers to equal promotions that remain for many women. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as well as other state and federal laws, make it illegal for companies to discriminate against women and other protected classes by, for example, refusing to promote, hire, or pay women equally. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is a federal agency charged with enforcing various federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. The EEOC recently settled an individual "glass ceiling" case against Nestle Waters North America, Inc., in which the company allegedly cultivated a "boys club" mentality when it came to promoting women. According to the complaint, the plaintiff, Dawn Bowers-Ferrara, worked at Nestle for over twenty years and received good performance evaluations. During her career, Bowers-Ferrara's male manager reportedly excluded her from all-male, company-funded events, including baseball games and going out for drinks. Bowers-Ferrara further alleged that she reported her concerns about this exclusive behavior to management. Soon after, as the company merged two of its business zones, her position was eliminated. And the promotion for which Bowers- Ferrara applied went instead to an allegedly less-qualified male manager who did not meet the minimum requirements for the job. Bowers-Ferrara ended up being the only employee to lose their job as a result of the consolidation. The settlement provides Bowers-Ferrara with USD300,000 in back pay and compensatory damages, as well as career transition services. Nestle will further establish an anti-sex discrimination company policy and provide training on it to managers involved in the selection process. Nestle did not admit any wrongdoing under the settlement. Title VII outlaws promotion discrimination and provides significant remedies The EEOC's Nestle settlement highlights some of the remedies that are available in individual glass ceiling cases. For example, Nestle agreed to: provide back pay (the salary the company would have paid you had it not fired you; or the difference between what you should have been paid if promoted and what the company actually paid you); pay compensatory damages, including emotional distress damages, and make changes to the company's anti-discrimination policies and training. In addition to the relief provided in Bowers-Ferrara's case, Title VII also allows for: -- punitive damages to punish the company in egregious cases; -- payment of your attorney's fees and expenses; -- reinstatement to the position if you were fired, as well as other "make whole" relief; and -- if reinstatement is not feasible, payment of your lost earnings until you can be reemployed (front pay) Class action promotion discrimination cases The EEOC filed Bowers-Ferrara's case as an individual employment discrimination lawsuit, but the EEOC has also brought glass ceiling discrimination cases as class actions An example of a class action case is the EEOC's settlement with Outback Steakhouse. The settlement resulted in, among other relief, USD19 million in damages to the class members. And in early 2017, the EEOC also settled a class action case, EEOC v. Mach Mining, LLC, on behalf of female applicants of various mining companies?a traditionally male-dominated industry?who alleged they were excluded from high-paying jobs. The settlement included: -- USD4.5 million in damages to the class members; -- hiring goals for female employees; -- training on anti-discrimination policies; and -- reporting to the EEOC about compliance with the settlement terms Class action procedural requirements In either an individual or class action case, you will need to meet certain procedural and jurisdictional requirements. Class actions, however, have additional requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 that must be met (different rules apply for state court cases). The requirements include, among other things: -- showing that the proposed class action involves enough people, usually at least 20-30 class members (numerosity); -- significant factual or legal issues that will affect the class members in a common way, as well as similar claims or defenses among the parties (commonality and typicality); and -- demonstrating that the lead plaintiff(s) will properly represent the other class members and that the lawyer is qualified and experienced in class action cases (adequacy of representation). If the above criteria are met, then the proposed class action must also meet an additional condition: the employer has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class members and they are seeking injunctive and/or declaratory relief (and certain forms of monetary relief) (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)); or questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual class member and a class is action is a more fair and efficient way to proceed (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)). Finally, the local rules that apply to different federal courts may also have class action provisions that must be followed. Key takeaways to see if your promotion discrimination case could become a class action There are several important factors to consider in evaluating whether a potential case should be an individual or class action. For example, in a gender discrimination/harassment case, you would want to consider: Do you know other female employees who have experienced similar problems (for example, discriminated against by the same supervisor); Is the discriminatory treatment the result of a company policy or other consistent practice, such as a specific promotion process or compensation formula; Are there at least 20-30 female employees who may have been affected by the same type of discriminatory conduct; and Will it be more efficient to combine all of these claims into one lawsuit rather than having a host of separate, individual lawsuits. A court will ultimately decide whether the case can go forward as a class action based on a variety of factors, including the procedural requirement. Likewise, the information you should include in an EEOC charge of discrimination will vary depending on whether it is a class action or individual. ********* 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 * * *