/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170501.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 1, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 86 Headlines ADVENTIST MIDWEST: Court Wants Class Cert. Bid in "Smith" Revised AFFILIATED GROUP: Class Certification Sought in "Linares" Suit ALLIANCE ONE: July 13 Fairness Hearing on "Hyun" Suit Settlement ALPHA & OMEGA: Bid to Certify Class in "Marshall" Suit Denied ALTEGRA HEALTH: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed AMBEV SA: Summary Judgment Bid in Brewers Suit to Be Heard in 4Q AMERICAN DG: Faces "May" Merger-Related Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. AMERICAN DG: Defends "Vardakas" Merger-Related Suit in D. Mass. AMERICAN HONDA: "Mckown" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass AMERICAN PRO: May 1 Hearing on Class Certification Bid Vacated AMPACET OHIO: Plant Employees Opt-in Class Certified ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Eighth Circuit Remands "Anderson" Suit ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Summary Judgment Bid Will Be Heard in 4Q ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Dismissal Appeal to Begin May 18 AVA RESTAURANT: Court Certified Class & Subclass in "Cazares" AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation BANK OF AMERICA: June 1 Hearing on Bid to Approve "Pastor" Accord BANKRATE INC: Wins Final Approval of $20-Mil. Suit Settlement BB&T CORPORATION: Certification of 401(k) Savings Class Sought BITESQUAD.COM: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed BLATT & MOORE: Lamar Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass BOURBON STREET: Reynolds Seeks Certification of Bartenders Class BUCCANEERS LIMITED: Class Cert. Bid in Cin-Q Auto Suit Denied BUCCANEERS LIMITED: Settlement in TTA Suit Has Initial OK CACH LLC: Judge Blakey Dismissed "Hallom" Case with Prejudice CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Stolinski Bid to Certify Class Nixed CENTEGRA HEALTH: "Byrne" Suit Seeks to Certify Clinicians Class CENTEGRA HEALTH: Hearing on "Byrne" Class Cert. Bid Continued CERNER CORP: Crawford Seeks to Certify Analysts Class CHICAGO, IL: RCP Publications Seeks Certification of Class CIGNA HEALTH: Welp Seeks to Certify of Classes & Subclasses CITIZEN'S TAXI: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Certify Drivers Class CMRE FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed COIL CHEM: Court Granted Conditional Certification in "Cooper" COLLECTION ASSOCIATES: Bid for Class Certification Stayed COLLECTO INC: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Gives More Info on FairPoint Merger CONSTELLIUM NV: Continues to Defend Class Suit by Retirees/Union COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Paci" Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction CSW INC: Davis, et al. Seek Conditional Class Certification CVS PHARMACY: "Lowe" Plaintiffs May File Modified Class Cert. Bid DIM SUM VILLA: "Lin" Suit Seeks to Certify Tipped Employees Class DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Denied Class Certification as Moot EKF DIAGNOSTICS: Dr. Sartin Seeks Certification of Class ELRON ELECTRONIC: Awaits OK of $1.1-Mil. Shareholder Settlement EMBRAER SA: Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Suit Remains Pending EMERY FEDERAL: 2nd Amended Bid for Class Certification Filed ENHANCED RECOVERY: Williams Seeks to Certify Consumers Class EXCEL STAFFING: Ferebee Suit Has Conditional Class Certification EXPRESS COURIER: Harris et al. Seek to Certify Collective Action FEDERATED SECURITIES: "Simai" Suit Seeks Certification of Class FEDEX CORP: Wins Final OK of Settlement in Arkansas Suit vs. Unit FIFTH STREET: "Linde" Suit Now Closed After $9.25MM Deal Approval FIFTH STREET: Says N.Y. Suit Now Closed After $14MM Deal Approval FLORIDA: Class Cert. Bid in Suit v. Seeger et al. Denied FLUIDMASTER INC: Court Denies Class Certification in "Sullivan" FORSTER & GARBUS: Settlement in "Feliciano" Case Approved FULENWIDER ENTERPRISES: Certification of FLSA Opt-in Class Sought GC SERVICES: Class Certification Bid in "O'Boyle" Suit Stayed GOOGLE INC: Free Range Suit Seeks Certification of Three Classes GRADE A: De Leon et al. Seek to Certify Employees Class GRANITE CITY FOOD: Koenig Seeks Conditional Collective Cert. GRANITE CITY FOOD: Koenig Seeks to Certify Tipped Employees Class HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Rudel Suit Seeks to Certify Merchants Class HORIZON FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid in "Wandersee" Stayed ILLINOIS: Class Certification Bid in "Koss" Suit Denied INFUSYSTEM HOLDINGS: Expects Filing of Consolidated Amended Suit INNOVAK INT'L: Bohannan Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses LAGASSE LLC: Motion for Class Certification Withdrawn LUBY'S INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Woods" Suit MARATHON OIL: Baucum Seeks to Certify Advisors & Operators Class MARY JANE M. ELLIOTT: Buck Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses MATCH GROUP: "Perkins" Suit Seeks Certification of Class MDL 2420: DPP and IPP Purchasers' Class Certification Bids Denied MDL 2740: Bid to Certify Class Sought in Taxotere Litigation MERCHANTS CREDIT: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Certification of 4 Classes MIDLAND CREDIT: Class Certified in "Leinenweber" Suit MOMS IN MOTION: "LaRue" Suit Seeks to Certify Facilitators Class MULTI PACKAGING: Supplements Disclosures to Appease Shareholders NORTHLAND GROUP: Settlement in "Hyun" Suit Has Initial OK OFF LEASE ONLY: Mohamed Seeks to Certify Spam Text Class OPTUM INC: "Mauthe" Suit Seeks Certification of Class OPTUM360 LLC: "Conner" Suit Seeks Certification of Class PEABODY ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Lynn" Class Suit PERCHERON FIELD: Suit Seeks to Certify Right of Way Agents Class PERSOLVE LLC: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Settlement in "Klippel" Suit Has Initial OK PREMIER CONSTRUCTION: Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought RBS CITIZENS: "Reinig" Suit Seeks Certification of 10 Classes RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed RFI CONSTRUCTION: Conditional Certification of FLSA Class Sought ROYAL BANCSHARES: Expects Resolution of Appeal in Fourth Quarter RUSHMORE LOAN: "Williams" Suit Seeks Certification of 6 Classes SALANDER ENTERPRISES: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued SEAFOOD JUNCTION: "MORRIS" Suit Seeks to Certify Class SEARS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Class Suits in California SEARS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits SEARS HOLDINGS: Matters Over Asbestos Exposure Remain Pending SOUTHERN HEALTH: "Medley" Suit Seeks Certification of Class SPARK NETWORKS: Wins Final OK of Accord Resolving Israeli Suits STAR BULK: Awaits Order in Appeal From Shareholder Suit Dismissal STAR HOME: "Paradysz" Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action STATE COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed U.S. SECURITY: "Barnett" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class UAW: Retired Employees Class Certified in Barnes Group Suit UNITED RECOVERY: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed US BANK: Continues to Defend Suits, Including BlackRock Cases VERIZON: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Aliksanyan" Suit VOLVO CARS: Class Certification Bid in "Neale" Suit Nixed WALGREEN CO: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Certification of Class WELLS FARGO: "Merino" Suit Seeks Certification of Class WELLS FARGO: Bids to Dismiss Suits by Investors Remain Pending WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL: Inmates Seek to Certify Class WHIRLPOOL CORP: May 15 Hearing on Bid to Certify 7 Classes ********* ADVENTIST MIDWEST: Court Wants Class Cert. Bid in "Smith" Revised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Jeffrey T. Gilbert entered an order in the lawsuit styled Ryan Smith, the Plaintiff, v. ADVENTIST MIDWEST HEALTH, an Illinois Non-profit Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-07606 (N.D. Ill.), striking Plaintiff's motion for class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 25, 2017, Plaintiff's motion for leave to exceed page limit in Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted in part. Plaintiff is given leave to file a 25-page brief. Defendant is given 25 pages for its response and Plaintiff has 15 pages for his reply. Plaintiff was given until April 28 to file his revised class certification motion. The briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion for class certification is modified as follows: Response due by May 26, 2017. Reply due is by June 9, 20117. Plaintiff's Motion for leave to file under seal of Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted. The motion hearing noticed for May 2, 2017 at 9:15 a.m. is stricken with no appearances required. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xZ7gn5Yb AFFILIATED GROUP: Class Certification Sought in "Linares" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MARIA C. LINARES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE AFFILIATED GROUP, INC., a Minnesota Corporation, d/b/a AFFILIATED CREDIT SERVICES; and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00450-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin, to whom AFFILIATED mailed a written collection communication, which contained a statement it "is licensed by the Division of Banking in the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions," during the period beginning March 28, 2016 and ending April 20, 2017". Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their respective officers, members, partners, managers, directors and employees, their respective immediate families, legal counsel for all parties to this action, and all members of their immediate families. The Plaintiff further asks the Court that her attorneys, Stern Thomasson LLP, be appointed Class Counsel. The case involves a collection letter dated March 28, 2016, which Affiliated mailed Plaintiff in an attempt to collect an alleged debt owed to Midwest Dental Green Bay-NE. The bottom of the Letter read, "This collection agency is licensed by the Division of Banking in the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions." According to the complaint, at no time during this lawsuit was Affiliated licensed by the Division of Banking in the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6Et0Bj0z The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip D. Stern, Esq. Heather B. Jones, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN & THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1315 Telephone: (973) 379 7500 Facsimile: (973) 532 5868 E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com andrew@sternthomasson.com heather@sternthomasson.com ALLIANCE ONE: July 13 Fairness Hearing on "Hyun" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled HYUN SOON CHUNG, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE ONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC. and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-02905-MCA-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Madeline Cox Arleo certified this class for purposes of settlement: "all consumers residing in the State of New Jersey, to whom Defendant sent a collection letter to Plaintiffs Complaint; which letter (a) was dated within one year prior to April 23, 2015, (b) was not returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable, (c) was seeking to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed to TD Bank USA, N.A., and (d) was sent in a windowed envelope such that the financial account number associated with the debt was visible from outside the envelope". The Settlement Agreement provides in part for Defendant to (1) retain the Settlement Administrator mutually selected by the Parties; (2) establish a settlement fund in the amount set forth in the Settlement Agreement; (3) pay the Class Representative the aggregate amount of $3,500 for individual statutory damages and service payment, subject to approval by the Court; and (4) pay Plaintiffs reasonable counsel fees, costs, and expenses, as determined by the Court. The Parties have selected Atticus Administration, LLC as the Settlement Administrator. The Settlement Administrator shall be responsible for administering the settlement according to the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement and as ordered. Defendant has provided the Settlement Administrator with an electronic database containing the identifying information of Settlement Class Members pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The costs of administering the settlement, including but not limited to formatting and printing the Class Notice, updating the database and mailing the Class Notice, and issuing and mailing the settlement checks, shall be paid by Defendant, and such payment shall not reduce or diminish in any way the relief to be paid to Plaintiff or the Settlement Class as identified in the Settlement Agreement. The Court appointed Andrew R. Wolf, Esq. and Bharati Sharma Patel, Esq. of The Wolf Law Firm, LLC and Yongmoon Kim, Esq. of the Kim Law Firm LLC as Class Counsel. A fairness hearing is set for July 13, 2017, in Newark, New Jersey. Objections to the settlement are due June 7. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BKdsipqu ALPHA & OMEGA: Bid to Certify Class in "Marshall" Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOHN MARSHALL, LAWRENCE GATES, and EARL HENSLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALPHA & OMEGA TRANSIT NETWORK, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-02257-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Colin S. Bruce entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify class; and 2. referring the case to the magistrate judge for further proceedings in accordance with the order. The Court finds instructive the decision of the district court in Eash v. Export Packaging Company, Inc., 2010 WL 3724770 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2010). In Eash, the plaintiffs claimed 225 employees were subject to a mass layoff at the defendant's facility without notice, in violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) (29 U.S.C. par. 2101). The court, however, found that the number, put forth by the plaintiffs in their affidavits, did "not explain how [the plaintiff] had knowledge that 225 employees were terminated without notice" and that the number was pure speculation, and not supported by competent evidence, as none of the plaintiffs worked at the defendant's human resources department. Eash, 2010 WL 3724770, at 2. Likewise in the instant case, Plaintiffs do not explain how they know forty or more of Defendant's drivers still have unsatisfied compensation demands (and, thus, a claim in this case) following the Department of Labor-ordered payouts. A plaintiff's failure to put forth sufficient or even minimal evidence of numerosity is enough to deny a motion for class certification. Iosello, 2005 WL 2007147 at 5, citing Retired Chicago Police Officers Association v. City of Chicago, 7 F.3d 584, 596 (7th Cir. 1993). A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=L6pBu7VJ ALTEGRA HEALTH: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned DR. DAVID SIMAI, on behalf of plaintiff and the class defined herein Plaintiff, v. ALTEGRA HEALTH CONNECTIONS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02292 (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of: (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. par. 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Altegra Health Connections, LLC, advertising or promoting its goods or services for sale. The Plaintiff further asks that he be appointed class representative and that Tiffany N. Hardy of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC and Adam J. Fishbein be appointed counsel for the class. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the vcertification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yiRGCgN6 The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com - and - Adam J. Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (516) 668 6945 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com AMBEV SA: Summary Judgment Bid in Brewers Suit to Be Heard in 4Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- A motion for summary judgment in the Brewers Retail Inc. Litigation will be heard in the fourth quarter of 2017, Ambev S.A. said in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On December 12, 2014, a lawsuit was commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), Brewers Retail Inc. (known as The Beer Store or "TBS"), and the owners of Brewers Retail Inc. (Molson Coors Canada, Sleeman Breweries Ltd. and Labatt Breweries of Canada LP (the "Brewers"). The lawsuit was brought in Canada pursuant to the Ontario Class Proceedings Act, and sought, among other things: (1) to obtain a declaration that the defendants conspired with each other to allocate markets for the supply of beer sold in Ontario since June 1, 2000; (2) to obtain a declaration that the Brewers conspired to fix, increase and/or maintain prices charged to Ontario licensees (on-trade) for beer and the fees charged by TBS to other competitive brewers who wished to sell their products through TBS; and (3) damages for unjust enrichment. As part of this third allegation, the plaintiffs allege illegal trade practices by Brewers. They are seeking damages not exceeding C$1.4 billion (approximately R$3.9 billion); punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages of C$5 million (R$14.1 million); and changes/repeals of the affected legislation. The Company says it has not recorded any provision in connection therewith. A motion for summary judgment has been filed by the defendants and should be heard in the fourth quarter of 2017. A hearing related to the class certification and trial on the merits is not expected to be held before 2018. Headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Ambev S.A. is the successor of Brahma and Antarctica, two of the oldest brewers in Brazil. Antarctica was founded in 1885. Brahma was founded in 1888 as Villiger & Cia. The Brahma brand was registered on September 6, 1888, and in 1904 Villiger & Cia. changed its name to Companhia Cervejaria Brahma. However, the legal entity that has become Ambev S.A., the current NYSE-and BM&FBOVESPA-listed company, was incorporated on July 8, 2005 as a non-reporting Brazilian corporation under the Brazilian Corporation Law and is the successor of Old Ambev. AMERICAN DG: Faces "May" Merger-Related Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- American DG Energy Inc. is facing a merger-related class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, according to the Company's March 21, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit brought by a public shareholder of the Company in the Business Litigation Section of the Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the "State Court"), May v. American DG Energy Inc., et al., Civ. Act. No. 17-0390-BLS2. The State Court case, filed on February 6, 2017, challenges a proposed merger transaction pursuant to which the Company would be acquired by an affiliated company, Tecogen Inc. The complaint alleges (i) breach of fiduciary duties against the individual defendants, and (ii) aiding and abetting the board's breaches of fiduciary duties against Tecogen. American DG Energy Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts. The Company installs, owns, operates and maintains complete distributed generation, or DG systems or energy systems, and other complementary systems at customer sites and sell electricity, hot water, heat and cooling energy under long-term contracts at prices guaranteed to the customer to be below conventional utility rates. AMERICAN DG: Defends "Vardakas" Merger-Related Suit in D. Mass. --------------------------------------------------------------- American DG Energy Inc. is defending a merger-related class action lawsuit pending in Massachusetts District Court, according to the Company's March 21, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company is named as a defendant (although no service of process has yet been effected) in a second class action lawsuit brought by a different public shareholder in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Federal Court"), Vardakas v. American DG Energy Inc., et al., Case 1:17- cv-10247-MPK (D. Mass). The Federal Court case, filed on February 15, 2017, similarly challenges the proposed merger described above. Specifically, the complaint alleges (i) violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a- 9 promulgated thereunder, (ii) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, (iii) various breaches of fiduciary duties, and (iv) aiding and abetting of said breaches by specific defendants. American DG Energy Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts. The Company installs, owns, operates and maintains complete distributed generation, or DG systems or energy systems, and other complementary systems at customer sites and sell electricity, hot water, heat and cooling energy under long-term contracts at prices guaranteed to the customer to be below conventional utility rates. AMERICAN HONDA: "Mckown" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JAMES R. MCKOWN AND MARGARET J. MCKOWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00204-R-JC (C.D. Cal.), James R. and Margaret J. McKown will move the Court on May 15, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Judge Manuel L. Real, in Courtroom 880 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, for an order certifying the action as a class action and appointing them and their counsel as representatives of the following class: "all persons or entities who (a) currently own or lease a Class Vehicle with soy-based components; and/or (b) previously owned or leased a Class Vehicle with soy-based components and can be identified as having incurred out-of-pocket expenses related to soy-based component defects". In the alternative, if the Court finds that certification of a nationwide class is improper, Plaintiffs seek to certify a separate Kansas-only subclass: "all persons or entities in Kansas who (a) currently own or lease a Class Vehicle with soy-based components; and/or (b) previously owned or leased a Class Vehicle with soy-based components and can be identified as having incurred out-of- pocket expenses related to soy-based component defects". A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aHlc5C2t Attorneys for James R. and Margaret J. McKown: Paul B. Maslo, Esq. Andrew J. Dressel, Esq. Jennifer Liakos, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC 525 South Douglas Street, Suite 260 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 331 8224 Facsimile: (646) 843 760 E-mail: pmaslo@napolilaw.com adressel@napolilaw.com jliakos@napolilaw.com AMERICAN PRO: May 1 Hearing on Class Certification Bid Vacated -------------------------------------------------------------- On the Court's own motion, the hearing on the Amended Unopposed Motion for Class Certification is advanced to 8:30 a.m., on May 1, 2017, according to an order dated April 26 by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald in the lawsuit titled LORI GOLDEN, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN PRO ENERGY, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00891-MWF-DTB (C.D. Cal.). In an Order dated April 28, the Court took the Hearing on the Amended Motion and Amended Unopposed Motion for Class Certification off calendar and under submission. The hearing set for May 1 is vacated. The Courtroom Deputy will be contacting counsel to arrange a telephonic status conference later in the week. The complaint alleges that Defendant had employed a practice generally applicable to the Class that allowed for phone calls to be placed to cellphone numbers using autodialing equipment, and Defendant failed to honor do not call requests, failing to scrub for cell phone numbers, failing to comply with the Federal Do Not Call Registry, and Defendant by continuing to place calls to persons without prior express written consent, as required by the law. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B9Ofct1y The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis Wood, Esq. Kas Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, California 92103 Telephone: (619) 696 9006 Facsimile: (619) 564 6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com kas@consumersadvocates.com - and - Gregory S. Weston, Esq. Andrew C. Hamilton, Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 798-2006 E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com andrew@westonfirm.com AMPACET OHIO: Plant Employees Opt-in Class Certified ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Bobby Hicks, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Ampacet Ohio, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00182- MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Watson entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify an opt-in class of: "all current and former Plant Employees employed by Defendants, at their Heath, Ohio location, for 3 years prior to the date of filing this Complaint who were paid hourly and have not been paid overtime pay for all hours worked in a week in excess of forty for the time spent at mandatory 15-minute pre-shift and for the mandatory post- shift showering (Plant Employees). 2. denying without prejudice Defendants' motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order; and 3. granting Plaintiffs' motion to stay. The Court said, "While Defendants offer competing evidence and arguments that Plaintiffs were not similarly situated, those arguments largely go to the merits of Plaintiffs claims. The Court is satisfied that, under the lenient standard applied at this initial stage of the proceedings, Plaintiffs have met their modest burden of showing that they have a colorable basis for their claim that a class of similarly situated plaintiffs exists. Notably, "[a]t the notice stage, district courts within the Sixth Circuit typically do not consider the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, resolve factual disputes, make credibility determinations, or decide substantive issues." Swigart, 276 F.R.D. at 214. Accordingly, although Defendants' arguments "may be compelling, the Court finds it inappropriate to engage in a merits analysis at this stage of the lawsuit." Id. In short, Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that they are similarly situated to hourly PTs at the Heath Plant who were not paid for overtime". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2ujXNwkh ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Eighth Circuit Remands "Anderson" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision but remanded the consolidated lawsuit filed by Nancy Anderson and Brian Knowlton, et al., according to Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV's March 22, 2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On 10 January 2012, a class action complaint asserting claims very similar to those asserted in the lawsuit by Richard F. Angevine was filed in Federal Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, styled Nancy Anderson et al. v. Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan et al. Unlike the Angevine case, however, the plaintiff in this matter alleges complete exhaustion of all administrative remedies. On 11 March 2013 the court consolidated the case with the Knowlton case mentioned below. A three-count consolidated complaint was filed on 19 April 2013. On 30 October 2013, the court dismissed Counts II and III, including the breach of fiduciary claims, but granted plaintiff leave to amend. On 19 November 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended Count III. The Company filed an Answer to amended Count III on 30 May 2014. On 16 May 2014, the Court granted the plaintiff's class certification motion on Count I, which certified a class of divested employees of Busch Entertainment Corporation. On 10 October 2012, another class action complaint was filed against Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan, Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan Appeals Committee and the Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan Administrative Committee by Brian Knowlton and several other former Busch Entertainment Corporation Employees in the Southern District of California. Like the other lawsuits, the Knowlton case claims that the employees of any divested assets were entitled to enhanced retirement benefits under section 19.11(f) of the Plan. However, it specifically excluded the divested Metal Container Corporation facilities that were included in the Adams class action. On 11 March 2013 the court consolidated the case with the Anderson matter. On 30 October 2013, the court dismissed Counts II and III of the Consolidated Complaint, including the breach of fiduciary claims, but granted plaintiff leave to amend. On 19 November 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended Count III, which was answered. On 16 May 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' request for class certification, which certified a class of divested employees of Busch Entertainment Corporation. On 8 July 2015, the Court granted plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which was based on the decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Adams case. On 9 October 2015, the Court issued a final, appealable order, as well as a stay pending appeal. On 22 February 2017, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision awarding enhanced pension benefits to the class of divested employees of Busch Entertainment Corporation, but remanded the case to the lower court and in so doing asked the lower court to reconsider whether plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment containing the specific benefits owed. The Company believes that the total amount of enhanced pension benefit at issue in this case is approximately USD 67.8 million. Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV is the world's largest brewer by volume and one of the world's top five consumer products companies by revenue. As a consumer-centric, sales-driven company, the Company produces, markets, distributes and sells a diversified portfolio of well over 500 beer and other malt beverage brands. These include brands with significant international distribution, such as Budweiser, Corona (except in the United States), Stella Artois, Beck's, Leffe, Hoegaarden, Castle Lager (except in the United States), Castle Lite (except in the United States), and Redd's (except in the United States); and brands primarily distributed to local markets such as Bud Light and Michelob Ultra in the United States; Corona Light, Modelo Especial, Negra Modelo, Victoria and Pacifico in Mexico; Skol, and Brahma and Antarctica in Brazil. ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Summary Judgment Bid Will Be Heard in 4Q -------------------------------------------------------------- Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV disclosed in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants in the Brewers Retail Inc. Litigation will be heard in the fourth quarter of 2017. On 12 December 2014, a lawsuit was commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, Brewers Retail Inc. (known as The Beer Store or "TBS") and the owners of Brewers Retail Inc. (Molson Coors Canada, Sleeman Breweries Ltd. and Labatt Breweries of Canada LP). The lawsuit was brought in Canada pursuant to the Ontario Class Proceedings Act, and sought, among other things: (i) to obtain a declaration that the defendants conspired with each other to allocate markets for the supply of beer sold in Ontario since 1 June 2000; (ii) to obtain a declaration that Brewers Retail Inc. and the owners of Brewers Retail Inc. conspired to fix, increase and/or maintain prices charged to Ontario licensees (on-trade) for beer and the fees charged by TBS to other competitive brewers who wished to sell their products through TBS; and (iii) damages for unjust enrichment. As part of this third allegation, the plaintiffs allege illegal trade practices by the owners of Brewers Retail Inc. They are seeking damages not exceeding CAD $1.4 billion (USD 1.0 billion), as well as punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages of CAD $5 million (USD 3.7 million) and changes/repeals of the affected legislation. Ambev has not recorded any provision in connection therewith. A motion for summary judgment has been filed by the defendants and should be heard in the fourth quarter of 2017. The class certification and trial on the merits is not expected to be held before 2018. Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV is the world's largest brewer by volume and one of the world's top five consumer products companies by revenue. As a consumer-centric, sales-driven company, the Company produces, markets, distributes and sells a diversified portfolio of well over 500 beer and other malt beverage brands. These include brands with significant international distribution, such as Budweiser, Corona (except in the United States), Stella Artois, Beck's, Leffe, Hoegaarden, Castle Lager (except in the United States), Castle Lite (except in the United States), and Redd's (except in the United States); and brands primarily distributed to local markets such as Bud Light and Michelob Ultra in the United States; Corona Light, Modelo Especial, Negra Modelo, Victoria and Pacifico in Mexico; Skol, and Brahma and Antarctica in Brazil. ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Dismissal Appeal to Begin May 18 ------------------------------------------------------------ A hearing on the appeal from the dismissal of a securities litigation has been set to begin on May 18, 2017, Atossa Genetics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said: "On October 10, 2013, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM, was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against us, certain of our directors and officers and the underwriters of our November 2012 initial public offering. The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and that we and certain of our directors and officers violated Section 15, of the Securities Act by making material false and misleading statements and omissions in the offering's registration statement, and that we and certain of our directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions in the registration statement and in certain of our subsequent press releases and SEC filings with respect to our NAF specimen collection process, our ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and our MASCT device. This action seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased our Common Stock between November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013, inclusive, damages of an unspecific amount." On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi, Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co- lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also amended the caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation. No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM. An amended complaint was filed on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. The plaintiffs filed briefs in opposition to these motions on July 11, 2014. The Company replied to the opposition briefs on August 11, 2014. On October 6, 2014 the Court granted defendants' motion dismissing all claims against Atossa and all other defendants. The Court's order provided plaintiffs with a deadline of October 26, 2014 to file a motion for leave to amend their complaint and the plaintiffs did not file such a motion by that date. On October 30, 2014, the Court entered a final order of dismissal. On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court and have appealed the Court's dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On February 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief. Defendants' filed their answering brief on April 13, 2015, and plaintiffs filed their reply brief on May 18, 2015. A hearing for the appeal has been set to begin on May 18, 2017. The Company believes this complaint is without merit and plan to defend against it vigorously; however failure to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the complaint could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition. Currently, the amount of such material adverse effect cannot be reasonably estimated, and no provision or liability has been recorded for these claims as of December 31, 2016. The costs associated with defending and resolving the complaint and ultimate outcome cannot be predicted. These matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and the actual cost, as well as the distraction from the conduct of the Company's business, will depend upon many unknown factors and management's view of these may change in the future. Atossa Genetics Inc. is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company focused on the development of novel therapeutics and delivery methods for the treatment of breast cancer and other breast conditions. The Company's leading program uses its patented intraductal microcatheters, which deliver pharmaceuticals through the breast ducts. AVA RESTAURANT: Court Certified Class & Subclass in "Cazares" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled EMMANUEL CAZARES and ERICK PEREZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, V. AVA RESTAURANT CORP d/b/a BUCCANEER DINER and COSTAS ALEXIOU, Jointly And Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00477-KAM-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto entered an order: 1. certifying a class pursuant to Plaintiffs' New York Labor Law (NYYLL) claims for unpaid overtime premiums, failure to provide wage notices and wage statements, as well as spread-of-hours claims accruing on or after January 1, 2011: "all servers, bussers, dishwashers, delivery employees, food preparers and cooks who worked at Buccaneer Diner at any time from January 30, 2009 through the present; 2. certifying a subclass pursuant to Plaintiffs' NYLL claims for unpaid minimum wage and such spread-of-hours claims as accrued prior to January 1, 2011: "all servers, bussers, dishwashers, delivery employees and food preparers (Minimum Wage Subclass or Subclass Members), who worked at Buccaneer Diner during the Class Period; 3. appointing Emmanuel Cazares and Erick Perez are as class representatives for the Class and the Subclass; 4. appointing Pelton Graham LLC as Class Counsel; 5. directing Defendants to furnish to plaintiffs' counsel or a third-party claims administrator in electronically readable form the contact information, dates of employment and job positions/titles of all members of the Class so that plaintiffs can issue class notice; and 6. directing Plaintiffs and defendants to meet and confer, and by April 14, 2017: (i) submit a joint revised proposed class notice; and (ii) advise the court whether a third- party claims administrator will be engaged or whether plaintiffs' counsel will serve the court-approved Class Notice. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QWgxSqRm AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities lawsuit against AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the Company's March 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Two class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and certain of the Company's former officers and directors, (Tuan Ha- Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul Sanders v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-JLT, filed on May 9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine Krause v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-JLT, filed on May 31, 2013. On December 4, 2013, the District Court consolidated the complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv- 11157-DJC, and an amended complaint was filed on February 3, 2014. The amended complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013. This consolidated amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice on March 20, 2015, and the lead plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint bringing similar allegations, and which no longer named Mr. DePinho as a defendant. The Company moved to dismiss again, and after a second round of briefing and oral argument, the court ruled in the Company's favor and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice on November 18, 2015. The lead plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. They also filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the district court's judgment, which the Company has opposed. On January 3, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to vacate the dismissal and judgment and Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss their appeal on February 8, 2017. On February 2, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, on behalf of shareholders who purchased common stock between May 16, 2012 and May 1, 2013, alleging claims similar to those alleged in the prior complaints, namely that the Company and certain of its former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for its TIVO-1 clinical trial in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. On March 2, 2017, the Company filed an answer to the third amended complaint, and the parties have initiated discovery. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action. Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to advancing a broad portfolio of targeted therapeutics for oncology and other areas of unmet medical need. BANK OF AMERICA: June 1 Hearing on Bid to Approve "Pastor" Accord ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Robert A. Pastor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-03831-VC (N.D. Cal.), Mr. Robert Pastor and Bank of America, N.A. will jointly move the Court on June 1, 2017 for preliminary approval of the Parties' class action settlement. The parties move jointly for certification of a settlement class; appointment of class counsel and class representatives; preliminary approval of the Parties' proposed settlement; and, approval of the Parties' proposed plan to provide notice to the class. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=K33sSXV4 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. David J. McGlothlin, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233 7770 Facsimile: (619) 297 1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com david@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP 245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400 6808 Facsimile: (800) 520 5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com BANKRATE INC: Wins Final Approval of $20-Mil. Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Bankrate, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that it received final approval of its $20 million settlement of a securities lawsuit. In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was brought in federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and other defendants, which is captioned The City of Los Angeles v. Bankrate, Inc., et al., No. 14-CV-81323-DMM. On November 23, 2015, the District Court dismissed an amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice for failing to adequately plead material misrepresentations or omissions, scienter, or loss causation and damages. On December 8, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging that the Company's 2012, 2013, and first half of 2014 financial statements improperly recognized revenues and expenses and therefore were materially false and misleading and caused damages. Plaintiffs sought relief (including damages and rescission or rescissionary damages) under the Securities Act of 1933 based on a March 2014 secondary offering and under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased the Company's securities between August 1, 2012 and October 9, 2014, inclusive. On May 17, 2016, the Company announced a proposed agreement, subject to Court approval, to settle this private securities class action against all defendants. Under the settlement, Bankrate agreed to pay a total of $20 million in cash to a Settlement Fund to resolve all claims asserted on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Bankrate stock between October 27, 2011 and October 9, 2014. The settlement further provided that Bankrate denies all claims of wrongdoing or liability. The court granted final approval of the settlement on February 6, 2017. The Company accrued the settlement amount as of June 30, 2016 and funded approximately $6.1 million to the settlement fund. Approximately $13.8 million of the settlement fund has been funded from insurance proceeds. Bankrate, Inc., aggregates large scale audiences of in-market consumers by providing them with proprietary, fully researched, comprehensive, independent and objective personal finance and senior care editorial content across multiple verticals including credit cards, mortgages, deposits, senior care and other categories, such as retirement, automobile loans, credit management techniques and taxes. BB&T CORPORATION: Certification of 401(k) Savings Class Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the two lawsuits entitled BURKE BOWERS, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. BB&T CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv- 00732-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.); and BREWSTER SMITH, JR., et al., the Plaintiffs, v. BB&T CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-841-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.), Brewster Smith, Jr., Erik Gavidia, Stephanie Gavidia, Doris Kirouac, Paula Bridges, Nancy Johnson, Kerri Greaner, Burke Bowers, Robert Sims, Stacy Holstein, Jeffrey Stauffer, and Patricia Wells move that the Court certify a class of: "all current and former participants and beneficiaries of the BB&T Corporation 401(k) Savings from January 1, 2007 through the date of judgment, who were injured by the conduct alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, excluding the Defendants". The Plaintiffs also move that the Court appoint each of them as representatives of this class and appoint their attorneys, Schlichter, Bogard & Denton LLP, as lead counsel and Nichols Kaster as additional counsel for the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fdCOoZ7p Proposed Additional Class Counsel and Attorneys for Bowers Plaintiffs: Kai H. Richter, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. Adam W. Hansen, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256 3200 Facsimile: (612) 338 4878 E-mail: krichter@nka.com cengstrom@nka.com ahansen@nka.com Proposed Lead Class Counsel and Attorneys for Smith Plaintiffs Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Michael A. Wolff, Esq. Troy A. Doles, Esq. Heather Lea, Esq. Sean E. Soyars, Esq. Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP 100 South Fourth Street St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621 6115 Facsimile: (314) 621 5934 E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com mwolff@uselaws.com tdoles@uselaws.com hlea@uselaws.com ssoyars@uselaws.com kstruckhoff@uselaws.com Local Counsel for all Plaintiffs David B. Puryear, Jr., Esq. PURYEAR & LINGLE, PLLC 5501-E Adams Farm Lane Greensboro, NC 27407 Telephone: (336) 218 0227 E-mail: puryear@puryearandlingle.com BITESQUAD.COM: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned OLD TOWN PIZZA OF LOMBARD, INC., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. BITESQUAD.COM, LLC, A Minnesota limited liability company, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03082 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks that the Court: 1. certify a class of: "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) from whom Defendants did not obtain "prior express invitation or permission" to send fax advertisements, or (4) with whom Defendants did not have an established business relationship, or (5) where the fax advertisements did not include an opt-out notice compliant with 47 C.F.R. par. 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)." 2. appoint Plaintiff as the class representative; and 3. appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eM1slcvu The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Ross M. Good, 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 rgood@andersonwanca.com BLATT & MOORE: Lamar Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit titled JESSICA LAMAR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLATT, HASENMILLER, LEIBSKER & MOORE, LLC; and PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04102-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff seeks to certify a class and a subclass. The class is defined as: "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) to whom Blatt sent a letter offering a settlement (c) which letter stated that the settlement might have tax consequences, (d) and the letter was sent on or after one year prior to date this complaint was filed and on or before 21 days after this complaint was filed". The subclass consists of: "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) to whom PRA or its agents or attorneys sent a letter offering a settlement (c) which letter stated that the settlement might have tax consequences, (d) and the letter was sent on or after one year prior to date this complaint was filed and on or before 21 days after this complaint was filed". Excluded from the class and subclass are defendants, all officers, members, partners, managers, directors, and employees of defendants as well as members of their respective immediate families, and legal counsel for all parties to this action and all members of their immediate families. The Plaintiff further asks the Court that the Law Office of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. The Defendants have been attempting to collect a judgment based on an alleged credit card debt from plaintiff which was incurred for personal, family or household purposes. On February 7, 2017, Blatt, acting on behalf of PRA, sent plaintiff a letter seeking to collect the alleged debt. The letter states that the balance due as of February 7, 2017 was $908.73. The letter offers to settle the alleged debt for 60% of $908.73. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Mw9uVeiM The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Francis R. Greene, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 917 4500 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com The Defendant is represented by: BLATT, HASENMILLER, LEIBSKER & MOORE, LLC 10 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60603 - and - PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC C/O Illinois Corporation Service 801 Adlai Stevenson Drive Springfield, IL 62703 BOURBON STREET: Reynolds Seeks Certification of Bartenders Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled TIMOTHY REYNOLDS, for himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BOURBON STREET PUB, INC., a Florida corporation, NEW ORLEANS HOUSE OF KEY WEST, INC., a Florida corporation, and JOSEPH J. SCHROEDER, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-10023-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order: 1. certifying a class certification of: "all current and former bartenders, who worked for any of the Defendants anytime during the three years prior to the Complaint being filed; 2. directing Defendants to produce within 14 calendar days of the Court's Order, a list of each putative class member's name, address, telephone numbers, email address, and date of birth, in the form of a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, in order to effectuate the notice process; 3. directing posting of the Notice in a conspicuous location for employees see at the Defendants' pub and motel within 5 days of the Court's Order; 4. authorizing Plaintiff to effectuate notice by mailing and emailing the proposed Notice to all putative class members within 30 days of receipt of the contact information from Defendants; 5. directing that potential opt-in, similarly situated plaintiffs must consent to opt into this litigation by no later than 60 days from the date of mailing the notice, and that the Plaintiff's counsel shall file all Consent Forms within seven 7 days from receipt of each Consent to Join Form; 6. allowing the Plaintiff to conduct a search for additional mailing and email addresses/contact information for any potential opt-in Plaintiffs whose address may be invalid, or whose notice is returned as undeliverable by the United States Post Office and re-mail/re-email the Notice to the putative plaintiff's last-known address; and, 7. granting all other relief to the Plaintiff that the Court deems just. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants availed themselves of an unlawful Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida Minimum Wage Act FMWA "tip credit," which caused the Plaintiff and other bartenders to be paid below the minimum wage under both federal and state law. In addition, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendants failed to properly pay him and other bartenders overtime wages and minimum wage for some of their work hours. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yhN1AebY The Plaintiff is represented by: Samara Robbins Bober, Esq. Peter J. Bober, Esq. SAMARA ROBBINS BOBER BOBER & BOBER, P.A. 1930 Tyler Street Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 922 2298 Facsimile: (954) 922 5455 E-mail: peter@boberlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher B. Deem, Esq. SMITH OROPEZA HAWKS www.SmithOropeza.com 138 - 142 Simonton Street Key West, FL 33040 Telephone: (305) 296 7227 Facsimile: (305) 296 8448 E-mail: chris@smithoropeza.com brandi@smithoropeza.com BUCCANEERS LIMITED: Class Cert. Bid in Cin-Q Auto Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned CIN-Q AUTOMOBILES, INC., et al., the Plaintiffs, v. BUCCANEERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 8:13-cv-01592-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Anthony E. Porcelli entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot; 2. denying Plaintiffs' motion to transfer related case under Local Rule 4.01(b), to consolidate cases and appoint interim class counsel as moot; 3. denying Defendant Buccaneers Limited Partnership's renewed motion for a determination that the mediation privilege has been waived by Plaintiffs' counsel as moot. The Court said, "As articulated more fully in the Court's March 31, 2017 Order entered in Technology Training Assoc., Inc., et al. v. Buccaneers Ltd. P'ship, Case No. 8:16-cv-1622-T-AEP (M.D. Fla. filed June 20, 2016), a class and settlement have been preliminarily approved regarding the same claims pending in this action. As a result, each of the parties' motions has been rendered moot". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uTWtJKUR BUCCANEERS LIMITED: Settlement in TTA Suit Has Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled TECHNOLOGY TRAINING ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., the Plaintiffs, v. BUCCANEERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01622-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Anthony E. Porcelli entered an order: 1. denying Cin-Q Plaintiffs' motion to transfer related case under Local Rule 1.04(b), to consolidate cases, and appoint interim class counsel; 2. denying Cin-Q Plaintiffs' motion to intervene; 3. granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and notice to the class as follows: a. Except as otherwise provided below, all capitalized terms used in this Order shall have the meanings and/or definitions given them in the Settlement Agreement and Release. b. The Court preliminarily approves the Agreement subject to the Fairness Hearing, the purpose of which will be to decide whether to grant final approval to the Settlement reached by the Parties. The Court finds that the Agreement, the Settlement set forth therein, and all exhibits attached thereto or to Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate, entered into in good faith, free of collusion to the detriment of the Settlement Class and within the range of possible judicial approval to warrant sending notice of the Litigation and the proposed Settlement to the Settlement Class and to hold a full hearing on the proposed Settlement. c. For settlement purposes only, conditioned upon final certification of the proposed class and upon Final Judgment, the Court preliminarily certifies the following class: "all persons who, in 2009 or 2010, received one or more facsimile advertisements sent by or on behalf of BLP and offering tickets for Tampa Bay Buccaneer games". Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are the following Persons: (i) BLP and its respective parents, subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, associated entities, business units, predecessors in interest, successors, successors in interest and representatives and each of their respective immediate family members; (ii) Class Counsel; and (iii) the judges who have presided over the Litigation and any related cases. d. The Court recognizes that BLP reserves all of its defenses and objections against and rights to oppose any request for class certification in the event that the proposed Settlement does not become final for any reason. BLP also reserves all its defenses to the merits of the claims asserted in the event the Settlement does not become Final for any reason, with the notable exception regarding the statute of limitations. e. For settlement purposes only, the Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiffs as representative of the Settlement Class. f. For settlement purposes only, the Court preliminarily appoints the following attorneys to act as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class: Phillip A. Bock, Jonathan B. Piper, Daniel J. Cohen Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC 134 North La Salle Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 g. The Court appoints the Settlement Administrator designated by the Parties, who will be an agent of the Court and subject to the Court's supervision and direction as circumstances may require. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Wmh8zTsR CACH LLC: Judge Blakey Dismissed "Hallom" Case with Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Arthur Hallom, et al., the Plaintiff, v. CACH, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09297 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. John Robert Blakey entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 17, 2017, all pending deadlines and hearings are stricken. The civil case is terminated. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mzbgBSE3 CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Stolinski Bid to Certify Class Nixed -------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer entered an order in the lawsuit styled Agnes Stolinski, the Plaintiff, v. Capital Management Services, LP, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00189 (N.D. Ill.), striking a motion to certify class as moot. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 21, 2017, on Plaintiff's oral request, the above cause is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to reinstate within 45 days. Status hearing set for May 4, 2017 is stricken. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=j9cYajSt CENTEGRA HEALTH: "Byrne" Suit Seeks to Certify Clinicians Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled LAURA BYRNE, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CENTEGRA HEALTH SYSTEM, the Defendant, Case No 1:17-cv-00018 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to: 1. grant conditional certification of this action as a representative collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of all Clinicians who were classified as exempt, were paid on a hybrid "per visit" and hourly basis, were not paid overtime compensation for time worked in excess of 40 hours in given workweeks, and who worked for Defendant dating back three 3) years from the date of notice until the present (FLSA Class); 2. approve court-facilitated notice of this collective action to the FLSA Class; 3. direct Defendant to produce a computer-readable data file containing the names, addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of employment, social security numbers, and dates of birth of the FLSA Class; 4. authorize the posting of the Notice at a location in Defendant's office where members of the FLSA Class are likely to view it; and 5. authorize Plaintiffs to send a notice, at their expense, by U.S. First Class mail and email to all members of the FLSA Class to inform them of their right to opt-in to this lawsuit and a reminder notice 15 days before the end of the opt-in period. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8G4icvxu The Plaintiffs are represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. Haley R. Jenkins, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233 1550 Facsimile: (312) 233 1560 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com hjenkins@stephanzouras.com CENTEGRA HEALTH: Hearing on "Byrne" Class Cert. Bid Continued ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Young B. Kim entered an order in the lawsuit captioned Laura Byrne, the Plaintiff, v. Centegra Health System, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00018 (N.D. Ill.), continuing the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 19, 2017, Plaintiff's motion for leave to exceed page limit is granted. Appearance on April 25 is not required to present these two motions. At the request of the parties, Defendant has until June 6 to file a response to the motion for conditional certification. Defendant is granted leave to exceed the 15-page limit when responding to the motion. Plaintiff then has until June 27 to file a reply thereto. These deadlines are firm. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h5ZJd17z CERNER CORP: Crawford Seeks to Certify Analysts Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned CRAWFORD, R. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CERNER CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00015-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "all Technical Solution and/or Support Analysts (TSAs) employed in Cerners AMS or SolutionWorks Organizations within the past 3 years". The Plaintiff additionally asks for an order requiring issuance of the notice as proposed in this motion to the putative class members. The Plaintiff and the putative class members were all employed by Cerner as TSAs. All class members performed similar job duties, were admittedly classified by Cerner as exempt from overtime compensation, and worked in excess of forty hours per week. At this early stage of litigation, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that she and putative class members are similarly situated for the purpose of conditional certification and notice, and respectfully requests that his motion be granted. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hYGyRzuT The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric L. Dirks, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 876 2600 Facsimile: (816) 221 8763 E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com - and - Jason Knutson, Esq. Breanne L. Snapp, Esq. HABUSH HABUSH & ROTTIER, S.C. 150 East Gilman St., Suite 2000 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 255 6663 Facsimile: (608) 255 0745 E-mail: jknutson@habush.com bsnapp@habush.com CHICAGO, IL: RCP Publications Seeks Certification of Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled RCP PUBLICATIONS INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-11398 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter order: 1. certifying a class consisting of: "Persons or Entities Who Were Ticketed for Violation of section 10-8-320 of the Chicago Municipal Code During the Class Period"; and 2. appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yP8dut1F The Plaintiff is represented by: Adele D. Nicholas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS 5707 W. Goodman Street Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (847) 361 3869 - and - Mark G. Weinberg., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG 3612 N. Tripp Ave. Chicago, IL 60641 Telephone: (773) 283 3913 CIGNA HEALTH: Welp Seeks to Certify of Classes & Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled STEVEN WELP, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the PLAINTIFFS, v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, NEXTERA ENERGY, INC., NEXTERA ENERGY, INC. EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN, AND THE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 9:17-cv-80237- DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order to certify these classes and subclasses: Cigna Class: "all persons who are covered under any contract or plan of health insurance that is administered, underwritten or insured by Cigna that insures behavioral or mental health care that categorically excludes coverage for outdoor behavioral (wilderness) therapy"; NextEra Class: "all persons who are covered under a NextEra Plan that categorically excludes coverage for outdoor behavioral (wilderness) therapy"; Cigna Sub-Class: "all persons who are covered under any contract or plan of health insurance that is administered, underwritten or insured by Cigna that insures behavioral or mental health care and whose claim for coverage for outdoor behavioral (wilderness) therapy was denied because the contract or plan excluded such coverage"; and NextEra Sub-Class: "all persons who are covered under the NextEra Plan and whose claim for coverage for outdoor behavioral (wilderness) therapy was denied because the contractor plan excluded such coverage". The case involves the intersection of the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and outdoor behavioral therapy. The Act, enacted in 2008, requires that insurance coverage limitations applicable to mental-health benefits are "no more restrictive than the predominant treatment limitations applied to substantially all medical and surgical benefits covered by the plan (or coverage); and (2) "there are no separate treatment limitations that are applicable only with respect to [mental- health benefits]". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=I8JpWNmA The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jordan Lewis, Esq. JORDAN LEWIS, P.A. 4473 N.E. 11th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 Telephone: (954) 616 8995 Facsimile: (954) 206 0374 E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com - and - Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, N.Y. 10036 Telephone: (212) 447 7060 Facsimile: (800) 922 4851 E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com Attorneys for Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company: Waldemar J. Pflepsen Jr., Esq. Michael A. Valerio, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 400 West Washington, DC 20007-5208 E-mail: WPflepsen@carltonfields.com mvalerio@carltonfields.com Attorneys for NextEra Energy, Inc., NextEra Energy Inc. Employee Health and Welfare Plan, and the Employee Benefit Plans Administrative Committee: Charles L. Schlumberger, Esq. SENIOR LITIGATION COUNSEL FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, Florida 33408 E-mail: Charles.Schlumberger@fpl.com CITIZEN'S TAXI: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Certify Drivers Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned DANIEL MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITIZEN'S TAXI DISPATCH, INC., and PATRICIA SHELTON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10389 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks that the Court: 1. order conditional certification of the action as a representative collective action pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), on behalf of all of the Defendants' drivers from three years from the date of notice; 2. order court-facilitated notice; 3. order Defendants to produce a list in electronic format of all persons who have provided driving services for Defendants for the past three years preceding the issuance of notice. The list shall contain their last known address, email, telephone number, and dates of employment; and 4. authorize Plaintiff to send notice, at Plaintiff's expense, by U.S. First Class Mail, email, and text to all members of the FLSA Class to inform them of their right to opt-in to this lawsuit. The lawsuit arises, in part, under the FLSA, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. In a nutshell, the FLSA claim alleges that the Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated drivers as "independent contractors" when they are properly characterized as employees under both statutory and common law. Defendants' uniform policies, practices, and procedures that resulted in all drivers being improperly classified as independent contracts shows that conditional certification is appropriate. Plaintiff moves for the Court to conditionally certify the action as a representative pursuant to FLSA, and to allow the below-procedures to properly notify the class of the lawsuit against Defendants. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=m4gIyFRB Class Certification Bid Continued Judge Kim entered an order continuing Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 19, 2017, appearance on April 25 is not required to present this motion. The court indicated it wishes to review the pending motion to dismiss first and issue a briefing schedule on the conditional certification motion at a later time if simultaneous briefing and ruling on the motion to dismiss is appropriate. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XxeUbuPx The Plaintiffs are represented by: David J. Fish, Esq. Kimberly Hilton, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East 5th Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355 7590 Facsimile: (630) 778 0400 - and - Quinton Osborne, Esq. OSBORNE EMPLOYMENT LAW LLC 799 Roosevelt Road, Suite 3-201 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Telephone: (331) 702 1538 Facsimile: (331) 465 0450 E-mail: Quinton@OsborneEmploymentLaw.com CMRE FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled NESTI THOMOLLARI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CMRE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00533-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay the class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p3bIBMI9 The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com COIL CHEM: Court Granted Conditional Certification in "Cooper" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled ALAN COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COIL CHEM, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00473-D (W.D. Okla.), the Hon Timothy DeGiusti entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of: "field operators performing completions work employed by Coil Chem, LLC at any time between three years prior to April 25, 2017 and the present who were paid a salary and a job bonus. 2. directing parties to confer and submit a revised Notice of Lawsuit in accordance with this Order within seven days; 3. directing Defendant to provide Plaintiff's counsel, in computer readable format, the following information regarding all putative class members: full name; last known address(es) with city, state, and zip Code; any last known e-mail address(es) (non-company address if applicable); last known telephone number(s); beginning date(s) of employment; and ending date(s) of employment (if applicable); 4. directing Plaintiff to send a copy of the Court-approved notice and consent form to the putative class members by First Class U.S. Mail and by email; and 5. denying Plaintiff's emergency motion for protective order prohibiting Ex Parte Communications With Plaintiffs and Class Members. The Court said, "Plaintiff alleges Defendant has contacted putative class members and encouraged them to settle their cases by executing a release. On the present record, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Defendant's communications with the putative class members were misleading or coercive. The record does not show any misconduct by Defendant, its counsel or any other evidence to support Plaintiff's contention that Defendant's actions deterred putative class members from participating in the collective action. Defendant's release does not willfully conceal any material information from putative class members. It concisely and accurately provides putative class members with basic information about the existence of a dispute and the nature of the issues therein. Nor is there any evidence Defendant threatened, intimidated or influenced any putative class members' decision to sign the document. Therefore, an order limiting communications between putative class members and Defendant is not warranted at this time. However, any type of communication with opt-in plaintiffs that is misleading, coercive or otherwise undermines the Court's approved notice may result in further action by the Court". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fRODdN46 COLLECTION ASSOCIATES: Bid for Class Certification Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ENEIDA JOHNSON, the Plaintiff, v. COLLECTION ASSOCIATES LTD, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00124- LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. District Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's motions to stay her class certification motion and for relief from the court's local rules; and 2. staying Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff brought the putative class action, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 1692-1692p. To prevent defendant from mooting the action, plaintiff moves for class certification and to stay that motion. See Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6J5ePEIt COLLECTO INC: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled MARY HEPFNER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COLLECTO, INC. d/b/a EOS CCA, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00530-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay the class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QLWJdnVV The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Gives More Info on FairPoint Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- In response to an injunction entered in connection with the Vento Action, Consolidated Communications Holdings Inc. filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2017, to provide additional disclosures in connection with the proposed merger with FairPoint Communications, Inc. On March 3, 2017, an alleged class action complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of Consolidated in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Vento v. Currey, et al. (Case No. 2017-0157) against the members of Consolidated's board of directors (the "Delaware Action"). The Delaware Action relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated December 3, 2016, between Consolidated, Falcon Merger Sub, Inc., a newly formed Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Consolidated, and FairPoint Communications, Inc. ("FairPoint") (as amended by the First Amendment to Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into as of January 20, 2017, the "Merger Agreement"). Among other things, the Delaware Action alleges that the members of Consolidated's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with soliciting approval of Consolidated's stockholders of the issuance of Consolidated's common stock to stockholders of FairPoint in the merger (the "Merger") contemplated by the Merger Agreement (the "Consolidated Stockholder Vote") because Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by Consolidated on February 24, 2017, of which the joint proxy statement of Consolidated and FairPoint, which also constitutes a prospectus of Consolidated, filed by Consolidated with the SEC pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3) on February 24, 2017 (the "Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus") forms a part, failed to disclose allegedly material information relating to the retention, compensation and financial incentives of a financial advisor to Consolidated in connection with the proposed Merger. On March 14, 2017, the plaintiff in the Delaware Action filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the Consolidated Stockholder Vote until such time as certain information concerning the financial interests of Consolidated's financial advisor in the proposed Merger are fully disclosed. On March 22, 2017, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware issued a letter decision stating that it will preliminarily enjoin the Consolidated Stockholder Vote (the "Injunction") until five days after such time as Consolidated has supplemented its disclosures to include a clear and direct explanation of the amount of financing-related fees that Consolidated's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, or any of its affiliates stands to receive in connection with the Merger if the Merger is consummated. In response to the Injunction, in order to provide a clear and direct explanation of the amount of financing-related fees that Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC or any of its affiliates stands to receive in connection with the Merger, and to provide additional information to its stockholders, Consolidated has determined to supplement the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus as described in this Current Report on Form 8-K at a time and in a manner that would not cause any delay of the special meeting of Consolidated's stockholders, which was scheduled to be held on March 28, 2017, or the Merger. In the Form 8-K, the Company said that under the terms of its engagement letter, Morgan Stanley provided the Consolidated Board with financial advisory services and a financial opinion in connection with the Merger and Consolidated has agreed to pay Morgan Stanley a transaction fee of $13 million, which is payable upon and is contingent upon the consummation of the Merger. Consolidated has also agreed to reimburse Morgan Stanley for its reasonable expenses incurred from time to time in connection with providing its professional services, including reasonable fees of outside counsel and other professional advisors incurred in performing its services. CONSTELLIUM NV: Continues to Defend Class Suit by Retirees/Union ---------------------------------------------------------------- Constellium N.V. continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit initiated by five retirees and the United Steelworkers union, according to the Company's March 21, 2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. During the third quarter of 2012, the Company implemented certain plan amendments that had the effect of reducing benefits of the participants in the Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood Retiree Medical and Life Insurance Plan. In February 2013, five Constellium retirees and the United Steelworkers union filed a class action lawsuit against Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC in a federal district court in West Virginia, alleging that Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC improperly modified retiree health benefits. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company believes that these claims are unfounded, and that Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC had a legal and contractual right to make the applicable modification. Constellium N.V. designs and manufactures a broad range of innovative specialty rolled and extruded aluminium products, serving primarily the packaging, aerospace and automotive end- markets. COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Paci" Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge John Robert Blakey entered an order in the lawsuit titled EMIGUELA PACI, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00094 (N.D. Ill.), dismissing case for lack of jurisdiction, terminating all pending motions, and vacating all set dates. The Court said, "Paci and Costco have both moved for summary judgment. Because Paci lacks Article III standing, however, the Court may not reach the parties' summary judgment arguments, and the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. For present purposes, the Court need not attempt to delineate the precise scope of what constitutes "real-world harm" under Meyers to establish standing for the statutory violation alleged here. It is enough to note that, on these specific facts, merely having to put a receipt in a file cabinet rather than a box does not constitute actual harm for standing purposes; nor does having to save a receipt that would ordinarily have been thrown out. Like Meyers, Paci immediately discovered that her receipt displayed more than it should have and she retained the receipt at all times. Like Meyers, Paci has failed to show that she suffered any harm, or any actual increased risk of injury, because the receipt in this case violated FACTA's truncation requirement. Indeed, in light of Meyers, this is not a close case. Paci has failed to articulate any harm caused by the printing of the extra digits on her receipt. She did not testify that the change in her receipt- handling routine cost her anything in terms of time, expense or emotional distress; there is no evidence that her identity was ever at risk of being stolen and nothing to show that she ever even fretted about her identity being stolen as a result of the alleged FACTA violation. Because Paci has failed to offer any evidence to support a finding of actual harm, the Court finds that she lacks standing to sue". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Elqh9ltG CSW INC: Davis, et al. Seek Conditional Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Daunte Davis, Kendall Holmes, Dwayne Morgan, Marques Stewart, Clint Robinson, Paul Robinson, Michael Owens, Marques Stewart, and Cornelius Buford, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, CSW Inc., and Northern Concrete Construction Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01283-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to: a. grant their motion for conditional certification; b. authorize the sending of class notices and consent forms for the travel pay class, and for the overtime computation claim class. c. require the Defendants to provide to the Plaintiffs an electronic list of names and addresses of class members within 10 days of the entering of this order; and d. grant to the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3kVnUSg5 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C. 310 W Wisconsin Ave, Suite 100 MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271 4500 Facsimile: (414) 271 6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com CVS PHARMACY: "Lowe" Plaintiffs May File Modified Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. John Z. Lee entered an order in the lawsuit captioned Carl Lowe, et al., the Plaintiff, v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-03687 (N.D. Ill.), granting Plaintiffs' motion to file instanter the modified public version of their motion for class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 21, 2017, the previously filed public version is stricken as moot. No appearance is required on the motion. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dJ3Ltwyz DIM SUM VILLA: "Lin" Suit Seeks to Certify Tipped Employees Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled JIAN CHANG LIN, on behalf of himself and other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIM SUM VILLA LLC., d/b/a DIM SUM VILLA, EMILY KEI, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05626-CCC-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for conditional collective certification of: "all tipped employees including but not limited to waiters, waitresses, servers, and delivery person employed by Defendants (Covered Employees) within the last three years (FLSA). The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendants seeking unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL). The complaint alleges that Defendants: (1) failed to pay Covered Employees the proper minimum wages under the FLSA and NJWHL; and (2) failed to pay Covered Employees the proper overtime premiums in violation of the NJWHL. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rXtvuEzz The Plaintiff is represented by: Keli Liu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353 8588 Facsimile: (718) 353 6288 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Denied Class Certification as Moot -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled RONDA L. DAVIS, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, the Defendant, Case No. 1:10-cv-01564-RC (D. D.C.), the Hon. District Judge Rudolph Contreras entered an order: 1. granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and 2. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6PqX8nKN EKF DIAGNOSTICS: Dr. Sartin Seeks Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned DR. BARRY SARTIN, the Plaintiff, v. EKF DIAGNOSTICS, INC. & STANBIO LABORATORY, L.P., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01816-SSV-JCW (E.D. La.), Dr. Sartin asks the Court to: 1. certify a class of: "all persons and entities, who within four years of the filing of this Complaint, received facsimile transmissions sent by Defendants with content that discusses, describes, promotes products and/or services offered by Defendants, and does not contain the opt-out notice required by 47 U.S.C. par. 227(b)(1)(C)(iii), (b)(2)(D), (b)(2)(E), (d)(2) or 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)-(vii)." 2. appoint Plaintiff, Dr. Barry W. Sartin, M.D., as the class representative; and 3. appoint Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile, Hayes, L.L.P. as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=frva3BFd The Plaintiff is represented by: George B. Recile, Esq. Preston L. Hayes, Esq. Ryan P. Monsour, Esq. Matthew A. Sherman, Esq. Patrick R. Follette, Esq. Barry W. Sartin, Jr., Esq. CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P. One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100 Metairie, LA 70001 Telephone: (504) 833 5600 Facsimile: (504) 833 8080 ELRON ELECTRONIC: Awaits OK of $1.1-Mil. Shareholder Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. awaits court approval of its $1.1 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit brought by Elscint shareholders, according to the Company's March 21, 2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In November 1999, a number of shareholders of Elscint filed a claim in the District Court of Haifa, together with a request to approve certain causes of action set out in the claim, as a class action on behalf of the public shareholders of Elscint, and a request for certain causes of action to be treated as a derivative action against various defendants, including Elscint, Elbit Imaging, Elron and Europa Israel to which Elron sold its holdings in Elbit Imaging in May 1999, and certain officers in the defendant companies. The claim alleges, mainly, that Elbit Imaging is duty bound to make a tender offer for the shares of Elscint held by the public and that it unlawfully refuses to do so and, in addition, it raises allegations of preference of the interests of the defendants over those of Elscint and its public shareholders with respect to a number of transactions involving Elscint that the plaintiffs allege discriminated against Elscint's public shareholders. In June 2007 the plaintiffs submitted to the Haifa District Court an updated statement of claim and request to approve the claim as a class action. The updated claim claimed compensation for damages sustained due to the alleged failure to effect the tender offer, but no longer sought an order compelling the tender offer. The updated statement of claim does not specify the monetary amount claimed, but did include various allegations relating to the manner of determining the damages claimed. The Haifa District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' request to approve the claim as a class action but the plaintiffs appealed and in May 2012 the Supreme Court handed down a judgment in which it partially accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiffs regarding the District Court's rejection of the motion to approve their claim as a "class action" against the various defendants including the Company. In the said judgment, it was determined, inter alia, that the motion for approval of the claim as a "class action" was accepted with some modifications and directions as to the conduct of the proceeding as detailed in the judgment and the case was returned to the District Court to conduct the claim as a "class action" against all of the defendants, including the Company and its former officers as detailed in the said judgment. The main cause of action alleged against the Company is minority oppression of the minority shareholders of Elscint, such that control of Elscint was sold to someone who is anticipated to exploit the assets of the company in an unequal manner ("Sabotage Sale"). The Company denies the allegations against it in the action. On February 9, 2016, a request was submitted to the District Court pursuant to which agreement was reached on a partial settlement agreement (between all the plaintiffs and all the defendants except the Company and the group of directors on its behalf). The actual settlement agreement has not been submitted to the District Court since, according to the above application, the parties are required to exhaust other approval proceedings regarding the participation of the insurers. The position of the plaintiffs as presented to the District Court by their legal representatives after the submission of the above request is that the cause of action against the Company and the group of directors on its behalf is separate from the causes of action against the other defendants and therefore -- as long as the Company and the group of directors on its behalf do not join the settlement, the plaintiffs are continuing the proceedings between the plaintiffs and the Company and the group of directors on its behalf. The Company said: "On January 11, 2017, we filed in court, a complementary settlement agreement signed by plaintiffs, us and former directors of Elron pursuant to which our liability to the plaintiffs will not exceed NIS 4.25 million (approximately $1.1 million), which includes compensation to the plaintiffs, costs and contribution to attorney fees. The complementary settlement agreement is subject to court approval and there is no assurance that such approval will be obtained or that the settlement agreement will be approved in the specific wording submitted." "We have made a provision in our financial statements to cover the amount set forth in the settlement agreement, which according to the estimation of our management, based, inter alia, on the opinion of our legal advisors, is sufficient to cover the financial resources that may be required of us in order to expunge the claim, if any." Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. is an operational holding company that focuses on building and enhancing technology companies, mainly in the fields of medical devices, cyber security, information technology (IT) and enterprise software. The Company's current group companies include companies at different stages of development and business maturation, operating mainly in these fields. EMBRAER SA: Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit pending in New York remains pending, Embraer S.A. said in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In August 2016, a putative securities class action was filed in a U.S. court against the Company and certain of its former and current executives. In October 2016, a federal Court in New York appointed a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel for the putative class action. In December 2016, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint seeks to bring claims on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Embraer securities during the period from January 11, 2012 through and including November 28, 2016 asserting violations of the U.S. federal securities laws relating to internal investigations and related issues. The Court has not yet issued a briefing schedule for the motion to dismiss and other procedural aspects of the case. So far, the Company believes that there is no adequate base to estimate provisions related to this matter. Embraer S.A. is the leading manufacturer of jets of 70 to 130 seats in the world, based on 2016 revenue arising from sales of commercial aircraft. Around 100 airlines from over 60 countries are flying the Company's commercial jet aircraft on five continents. The Company's customers include some of the largest and most significant network, regional and low cost carriers in the world. EMERY FEDERAL: 2nd Amended Bid for Class Certification Filed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled FRANK A. AND SHELLY PALOMBARO, the Plaintiffs, v. EMERY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00792-SJD-KLL (S.D, Ohio), the Plaintiffs submitted their Second Amended Motion for Class Certification with redacted copies of exhibits. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QGucvO4k The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory M. Utter, Esq. Melissa A. Schaub, Esq. Keating Muething & Klekamp, PLL 1 East Fourt Street, Suite 1400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 579 6540 Facsimile: (513) 579 6457 E-mail: gmutter@kmklaw.com mschaub@kmklaw.com - and - Michael Paul Smith, Esq. Melissa L. English, Esq. SMITH GILDEA & SCHMIDT 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 821 0070 Facsimile: (410) 821 0071 E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com menglish@sgs-law.com - and - Timothy F. Maloney, Esq. Veronica B. Nannis, Esq. JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Telephone: (301) 220 2200 Facsimile: (301) 220 1214 E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com vnannis@jgllaw.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: Williams Seeks to Certify Consumers Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled ROSS WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00545-VAB (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an Order certifying a class of: "all consumers with an address in the State of Connecticut (2) who were mailed a Collection Letter by the Defendant, from April 6, 2015 to the present, (3) in an attempt to collect an obligation owed to or allegedly owed to DirectTV, (4) that contained a 30-day Validation Notice, (5) along with the statement that "DirecTV has placed your previously disputed account with ERC. As of the date on this notice, an investigation of your dispute has been completed and the account has been placed with our office for resolution"." The Plaintiff filed the complaint averring that the Defendant violated Sections 1692e and 1692g of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The FDCPA requires debt collectors to provide debtors with a 30-day Validation Notice. That Notice must be clearly and unambiguously conveyed, and may not be overshadowed or contradicted by accompanying messages from the debt collector. The only issue presented in this action is whether this quoted language would have confused or misled the least sophisticated consumer as to their rights set forth in the 30-day Validation Notice. This is a legal issue that is identical across the putative class, the lawsuit claims. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EXCVx41v The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695 3282 Facsimile: (732) 298 6256 E-mail: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com EXCEL STAFFING: Ferebee Suit Has Conditional Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled TYRONN FEREBEE, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXCEL STAFFING SERVICE, INC. et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv- 00008-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Terrence W. Boyle entered an order allowing Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of collective action. The class is defined as: "all current and former Nurses (RNs, LPNs, and CNAs) classified as independent contractors who worked for defendants Excel Staffing Service, Inc., Contractors & Consultants, Inc., Excel Staffing Professional Nursing, Inc., David Tolin, or Frederick Tolin at any location throughout the United States from three years prior to the date of entry of this order to the present". Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the decision of United States Magistrate Judge Gates entered November 18, 2016, is affirmed. The parties are further ordered to meet and confer and to jointly submit a revised proposed class notice as well as any proposed protective order within 2) days of the date of entry of this order. Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that defendants misclassify their workers as independent contractors instead of as employees and in doing so deny those workers overtime pay to which they are entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA). Defendants Excel Staffing Service, Contractors and Consultants, and Excel Staffing Professional Nursing are alleged to operate a staffing company which provides registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical nurses (LPNs), and certified nursing assistants (CNAs) to medical care facilities in multiple sates, including North Carolina, Texas. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zjkxo2gD EXPRESS COURIER: Harris et al. Seek to Certify Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JAMES HARRIS, RICK KETCHAM and ADAM MANSKE, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFF, v. EXPRESS COURIER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-5033-TLB (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant a motion for final certification of collective action. The Plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. Code Ann. section 11-4-201, et seq. (AMWA), for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated minimum and overtime wages as required by the FLSA and AMWA. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RQtFrk2k The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua West, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: west@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Kerri E. Kobbeman, Esq. CONNER & WINTERS, LLP 4375 N. Vantage Dr., Ste. 405 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 Telephone: (479) 582-5711 Facsimile: (479) 587-1426 E-mail: KKobbeman@cwlaw.com - and - Andrew Butcher, Esq. Adam C. Smedstad, Esq. Emily A. Quillen, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 1850 M Street, N.W., Suite 280 Washington, DC 20036-5804 Telephone: (202) 551 9030 Facsimile: (202) 296 9433 E-mail: abutcher@scopelitis.com asmedstad@scopelitis.com equillen@scopelitis.com FEDERATED SECURITIES: "Simai" Suit Seeks Certification of Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Dr. David Simai on behalf of plaintiff and the class, the Plaintiff, v. FEDERATED SECURITIES, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02283 (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of: (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Federated Securities, Inc., advertising or promoting its goods or services for sale. The Plaintiff further asks the Court that he be appointed class representative and that Tiffany N. Hardy of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC and Adam J. Fishbein be appointed counsel for the class. Dr. David Simai brings this action to secure redress for the actions of defendant Federated Securities, Inc., in sending or causing the sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tB1208zU The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com - and - Adam J. Fishbein., Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, New York 11598 Telephone: (516) 668 6945 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com FEDEX CORP: Wins Final OK of Settlement in Arkansas Suit vs. Unit ----------------------------------------------------------------- A court granted final approval to a settlement resolving a case in Arkansas against a subsidiary of FedEx Corporation, according to the Company's March 22, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 28, 2017. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is involved in class-action lawsuits (including 21 that have been certified as class actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators under a contractor model no longer in use should have been treated as employees, rather than independent contractors. Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs. employee). In sum, the court ruled on the Company's summary judgment motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified as class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases were contractors as a matter of the law of 20 states. The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases. The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January 2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a determination with respect to the correctness of the district court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage Payment Act. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh Circuit were stayed. On October 3, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that a 20 factor right to control test applies to claims under the Kansas Wage Payment Act and concluded that under that test, the class members were employees, not independent contractors. The case was subsequently transferred back to the Seventh Circuit, where both parties made filings requesting the action necessary to complete the resolution of the appeals. The parties also made recommendations to the court regarding next steps for the other 19 cases that are before the Seventh Circuit. FedEx Ground requested that each of those cases be separately briefed given the potential differences in the applicable state law from that in Kansas. On July 8, 2015, the Seventh Circuit issued an order and opinion confirming the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court, concluding that the class members were employees, not independent contractors. Additionally, the Seventh Circuit referred the other 19 cases to a representative of the court for purposes of setting a case management conference to address briefing and argument for those cases. During the second quarter of 2015, the Company established an accrual for the estimated probable loss in the Kansas case. In the second quarter of 2016 the Kansas case settled, and the Company increased the accrual to the amount of the settlement. The settlement requires court approval. During the third quarter of 2016, the Company reached agreements in principle to settle all of the 19 cases on appeal in the multidistrict independent contractor litigation. All of these settlements require court approval. The Company recognized a liability for the expected loss (net of recognized insurance recovery) related to these cases and certain other pending independent-contractor-related proceedings of $204 million. The Kansas case was remanded to the multidistrict litigation court, and the other 19 cases remain at the Seventh Circuit; however, approval proceedings will be conducted primarily by the multidistrict litigation court. Plaintiffs filed motions for preliminary approval between June 15 and June 30, 2016, and on August 3 and 4, 2016, the multidistrict litigation court issued orders indicating that it would grant preliminary approval if the Seventh Circuit would remand the cases on appeal for the purpose of entering approval orders. Upon the parties' joint motion, the Seventh Circuit remanded the cases for this purpose on August 10, 2016, and the multidistrict litigation court entered orders preliminarily approving the settlements on August 17, 2016. Fairness hearings were previously scheduled for January 23 and 24, 2017, but were held on March 13 and 14, 2017. On March 15, 2017, the court issued orders indicating that it would grant final approval of each settlement if the Seventh Circuit remands the cases on appeal for the purpose of considering and granting final approval. The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight certified class actions back to the district courts where they were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Seven of these matters settled for immaterial amounts and have received court approval. The case in Arkansas settled in the second quarter of 2016, and the Company established an accrual for the amount of the settlement. The court held a final approval hearing on March 1, 2017, and granted final approval on March 6, 2017. California Case The case in California was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the court reversed the district court decisions and held that the plaintiffs in California were employees as a matter of law and remanded the cases to the district court for further proceedings. In the first quarter of 2015, the Company recognized an accrual for the then-estimated probable loss in this case. In June 2015, the parties in the California case reached an agreement to settle the matter for $228 million, and in the fourth quarter of 2015 the Company increased the accrual to that amount. The court entered final judgment on June 20, 2016, and two objectors to the settlement filed appeals with the Ninth Circuit. One objector has settled with plaintiffs' counsel, and the Company expects the appeal by the second objector to be briefed by the end of the fourth quarter of 2017 and arguments to be scheduled thereafter. The settlement is not effective until all appeals have been resolved without affecting the court's approval of the settlement. In addition, the Company is defending contractor-model cases that are not or are no longer part of the multidistrict litigation. These cases are in varying stages of litigation. The Company does not expect to incur a material loss in these matters; however, it is reasonably possible that potential loss in some of these lawsuits or changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators could be material. In these cases, the Company continues to evaluate what facts may arise in the course of discovery and what legal rulings the courts may render and how these facts and rulings might impact the loss. For a number of reasons, the Company is not currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in these cases. The number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain, as they are dependent on how the class of drivers is defined and how many individuals will qualify based on whatever criteria may be established. In addition, the parties have conducted only very limited discovery into damages in certain of these cases, which could vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff and be dependent on evidence pertaining to individual plaintiffs, which has yet to be produced in the cases. Further, the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the court, including on the merits of the claims, on FedEx Ground's defenses, and on evidentiary issues. As a consequence of these factors, as well as others that are specific to these cases, the Company is not currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. The Company does not believe that a material loss is probable in these matters. Adverse determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's independent contractors could, among other things, entitle certain owner-operators and their drivers to the reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-and-hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax and benefit liability for FedEx Ground. The Company believes that FedEx Ground's owner-operators are properly classified as independent contractors and that FedEx Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the company's independent contractors. FedEx Corporation provides a broad portfolio of transportation, e- commerce and business services through companies competing collectively, operating independently and managed collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. The Company's primary operating companies are Federal Express Corporation ("FedEx Express"), the world's largest express transportation company; TNT Express B.V. ("TNT Express"), an international express, small-package ground delivery and freight transportation company; FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground"), a leading North American provider of small-package ground delivery services; and FedEx Freight, Inc. ("FedEx Freight"), a leading U.S. provider of less-than-truckload ("LTL") freight services. FIFTH STREET: "Linde" Suit Now Closed After $9.25MM Deal Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- The litigation in the securities lawsuit initiated by Ronald K. Linde, et al., is now concluded after the Court approved the parties' $9,250,000 settlement, Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company was named as a defendant in two putative securities class-action lawsuits filed by purchasers of the Company's shares. The suits are related to the securities class actions brought by shareholders of Fifth Street Finance Corp., for which Fifth Street Management LLC serves as investment adviser. The first lawsuit by the Company's shareholders was filed on January 7, 2016, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and was captioned Ronald K. Linde, etc. v. Fifth Street Asset Management Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv- 00025. The defendants are the Company, Leonard M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Steven M. Noreika, Wayne Cooper, Mark J. Gordon, Thomas L. Harrison, and Frank C. Meyer. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of conduct to artificially inflate FSC's assets and investment income and, in turn, the Company's valuation at the time of its initial public offering, thereby rendering the Company's initial public offering Registration Statement and Prospectus materially false and misleading. The plaintiffs have not quantified their claims for relief. On February 25, 2016, the court granted the Company's unopposed motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the case could be coordinated as appropriate with the securities class actions filed by FSC shareholders. On April 22, 2016, the court appointed Kieran and Susan Duffy as lead plaintiffs and the law firm of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 13, 2016. On March 7, 2016, the other putative class action by the Company's shareholders was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defendants were the same as in the Linde case, and the complaint was a virtual clone of the original Linde complaint. The Trupp plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her case before lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed in the Linde case. Following an agreed mediation, and as previously disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K filed on August 4, 2016, the parties in the Linde case signed an agreement to settle the action for $9,250,000, which was covered by insurance proceeds. The proposed settlement was subject to lead plaintiffs' completion of additional discovery and approval by the court after notice has been sent to the settlement class. Lead plaintiffs completed the additional discovery and decided to proceed with the proposed settlement. The parties submitted the proposed settlement to the court on September 23, 2016, and asked the court to enter an order certifying the putative class for settlement purposes, authorizing dissemination of notice of the settlement to potential class members, and scheduling a fairness hearing on the proposed settlement. On November 9, 2016, the court entered the proposed order and scheduled the fairness hearing for February 16, 2017. The fairness hearing was held on February 16, 2017 and the proposed settlement was approved. The litigation is now concluded. Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. is an alternative asset manager with approximately $4.7 billion of assets under management as of December 31, 2016. The funds that Fifth Street manages provide innovative and flexible financing solutions to small and mid-sized companies across their capital structures, primarily in connection with investments by private equity sponsors. FIFTH STREET: Says N.Y. Suit Now Closed After $14MM Deal Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated securities litigation in New York is now concluded following approval of $14,050,000 settlement, Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said: "In October and November of 2015, we, our executive officers and [Fifth Street Finance Corp.] were named as defendants in three putative securities class-action lawsuits filed in New York and Connecticut federal courts (and later consolidated in New York). The lawsuits alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased FSC common stock between July 7, 2014, and February 6, 2015. The lawsuits alleged in general terms that defendants engaged in a purportedly fraudulent scheme designed to artificially inflate the true value of FSC's investment portfolio and investment income in order to increase our revenue. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but did not specify the amount of damages being sought. A lead plaintiff was selected in February 2016, a consolidated complaint similar to the original complaint was filed in April 2016, and a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was filed in May 2016." The parties agreed in July to settle the case for $14,050,000, with approximately 99% of the settlement amount to be paid from insurance coverage. Confirmatory discovery was completed in August, and the lead plaintiff filed the proposed settlement with the court in September. On November 9, 2016, the court authorized the parties to send notice to the class and scheduled a fairness hearing for February 16, 2017. No objections or opt-outs to the settlement were received by the deadline. The fairness hearing was held on February 16, 2017 and the proposed settlement was approved and paid. The litigation is now concluded. Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. is an alternative asset manager with approximately $4.7 billion of assets under management as of December 31, 2016. The funds that Fifth Street manages provide innovative and flexible financing solutions to small and mid-sized companies across their capital structures, primarily in connection with investments by private equity sponsors. FLORIDA: Class Cert. Bid in Suit v. Seeger et al. Denied -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOSEPH WITCHARD, the Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY SEEGER, JEFFREY MORALES, J. PEREZ., DAVID KEITH and DON OLOLADE, the Defendants, Case No. 6:14-cv-02042-CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Thomas B. Smith entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiff's motion for emergency relief or discharge from unlawful federal custody; 2. granting Defendant Morales' motion for waiver of service, motion to be excused from paying costs of service, and motion for enlargement of time to respond to complaint; 3. granting Defendant Perez's motion to quash service of process, and denying Defendant Perez's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or qualified immunity without prejudice; 4. denying Plaintiff's motions for entry of clerk's default against Defendants Perez and Morales as moot; 5. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification and motion for discovery on the issue of class action certification; and 6. denying Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery or for sanctions without prejudice as premature. The Court has not yet directed the parties to conduct discovery. The Court said, "Plaintiff states that he is entitled to discharge from federal custody because he was illegally using an unconstitutionally issued arrest warrant. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's motion and concludes that it does not raise any issues warranting emergency status. Plaintiff is advised that he should only use the term "emergency" in extraordinary circumstances, such as when there is a true and legitimate emergency. When a pleading is labeled as an emergency, the Court is compelled to immediately divert its attention from other pending matters and to focus on the "emergency." The present motion does not assert matters that constitute an emergency, and Plaintiff is warned that he should not label any future pleadings as an emergency unless there is a true and legitimate emergency. Furthermore, Plaintiff's request for release from incarceration is not properly filed in this case. Plaintiff was warned on January 26, 2015 and again on June 9, 2015 that he may not pursue habeas corpus remedies in the instant civil rights action. Plaintiff may seek release from incarceration by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a new case in the appropriate court". The Court accepts Defendant Morales' waiver of service of the summons. Defendant Morales will not be required to pay the costs of service. Additionally, Defendant Morales shall have 21 days from the date of this Order to respond to the complaint. The Clerk of Court shall send a Summons and Marshal's 285 Form to Plaintiff. Plaintiff should complete these forms for Defendant Perez and mail the completed forms to the Clerk's Office within 21 days from the date of this Order. The failure to return the completed forms will result in the dismissal of Defendant Perez from this action without further notice. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pDvm46k8 FLUIDMASTER INC: Court Denies Class Certification in "Sullivan" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Pat Sullivan, et al., the Plaintiff, v. Fluidmaster, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-05696 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motions to exclude Defendant's experts; 2. granting in part and denying Plaintiffs' motion to strike; 3. granting in part and denying Defendant's motions to exclude Plaintiffs' experts; and 4. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 31, 2017, the Courtroom Deputy will contact the parties to arrange a mutually agreeable time for the next status hearing before Judge Dow and Magistrate Judge Gilbert, at which time the parties may raise any issues regarding discovery, motions for reconsideration, and future motion practice before either of the assigned judges. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H85Mux5Y FORSTER & GARBUS: Settlement in "Feliciano" Case Approved --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled GINGER I. FELICIANO, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, and LYNN ANTISTA, Consolidated Plaintiff Case. No. 2:15-cv-04338-CLW, the Plaintiffs, v. FORSTER, GARBUS & GARBUS, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-02496-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Cathy Waldor entered an order certifying a Settlement Class of: "all Consumers who reside in the State of New Jersey to whom Forster, Garbus & Garbus mailed a written communication during the period beginning April 7, 2014, and ending June 24, 2015, in an attempt to collect a debt on behalf of either Sallie Mae or LVNV Funding LLC, on a Credit One Bank credit card account which were mailed in a windowed envelope such that the file number or QR Code containing the file number associated with the Debt was visible from the outside of the envelope"; In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, FG&G shalt make these payments: a. FG&G shall create a class settlement fund of $1,980.00 ("Class Recovery"), from which the Settlement Administrator will distribute pro rota among those Class Members whose notice was not returned as undeliverable and who did not exclude themselves from the Settlement (Claimants). Claimants will receive a pro rota share of the Class Recovery by check. Checks issued to Claimants will be void 60 days from the date of issuance. Any checks that have not been cashed by the void date, along with any unclaimed funds remaining in the Class Recovery, will be donated as a cypres award to The Center for Social Justice at Seton Hall School of Law. b. FG&G shall pay each Plaintiff $1,500.00. c. FG&G shall pay Class Counsel for their attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the action. Class Counsel shall not request additional fees or costs from FG&G or the Class Members. Heffler Claims Group is the third-party settlement administrator. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z11BIkB5 FULENWIDER ENTERPRISES: Certification of FLSA Opt-in Class Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled HELEN HOLLAND, Individually, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiffs, v. FULENWIDER ENTERPRISES, INC., a North Carolina Corporation, PHOENIX TACO, L.L.C., a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, MICHAEL FULENWIDER, an Individual, TOM HIRUNPUGDI, an Individual, and ERSKINE WHITE, an Individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00048-MOC-DLH (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an Order: 1. conditionally certifying and approving notice to the following Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective class: "all current and former employees who were misclassified as exempt Assistant Managers or Assistant Unit Managers ("AUM") of Defendants' KFC, Taco Bell and Long John Silver's franchise restaurants located in the United States who work (or have worked) at said restaurants at any time during the applicable limitation's period covered by this Collective Action Complaint (i.e. two years for FLSA violations, three years for willful FLSA violations), up to and including the date of final judgment in this matter, and who is the Named Plaintiff and those who elect to opt- in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)". 2. directing Defendants, within seven calendar days of this Court's order, to provide Plaintiff's counsel, in computer- readable electronic format, the names, job locations, dates of employment, mailing addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of all persons who are, have been, or will be employed by Defendant as AUMs at any time within the last three years; 3. authorizing Plaintiff to mail and e-mail Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent forms to these putative class members; and 4. approving a 90-day opt-in period in which putative class members may return their signed consent forms. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SEUTJvbw The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher R. Strianese, Esq. Tamara L. Huckert, Esq. STRIANESE PLLC 401 North Tryon St., 10th Fl. Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 998 2577 E-mail: chris@strilaw.com tamara@strilaw.com www.strilaw.com GC SERVICES: Class Certification Bid in "O'Boyle" Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned BARBARA O'BOYLE, the Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv- 01384-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. District Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order granting Plaintiff's motions to stay her class certification motion. The Court said, "Plaintiff brings this putative class action, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 1692-1692p. To prevent defendant from mooting the action, plaintiff moves for class certification and to stay that motion. See Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). Plaintiff further moves for relief from this court's local rules requiring that every motion be accompanied by a supporting memorandum and imposing a briefing schedule on the parties. Defendant has not opposed these motions." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=awtqbvNx GOOGLE INC: Free Range Suit Seeks Certification of Three Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled FREE RANGE CONTENT, INC., a California corporation, COCONUT ISLAND SOFTWARE, INC., a Hawaii corporation, TAYLOR CHOSE, a Minnesota resident, and MATTHEW SIMPSON, a British Columbia, Canada resident, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC, a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:14-cv-02329-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for certification of these classes: First Class seeking declaratory relief for violations of Cal. Civ. Code and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code: "all former or current Google AdSense publishers: (1) whose AdSense accounts were subject to Google's terms and conditions or terms of service for the U.S., Canada, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, United States Minor Outlying Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Falkland Islands, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Netherland Antilles, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, or the Turks and Caicos Islands (the locations at issue); (2) whose AdSense account Google disabled or terminated for any breach of contract, including policy violations or invalid activity, on any date between and including May 20, 2010, and the date of judgment in this matter; and (3) whose last AdSense program earnings or unpaid amounts Google withheld in their entirety, and permanently, in connection with such disablement or termination"; Second terms-and-conditions class seeking damages or restitution for violations of Cal. Civ. Code par. 1671(b) and the UCL, as well as breach of contract: "all former or current Google AdSense publishers: (1) whose AdSense accounts were subject to Google's terms and conditions for the locations at issue; (2) whose AdSense account Google disabled or terminated for any breach of contract, including policy violations or invalid activity, on any date between and including May 20, 2010, and April 22, 2013; and (3) whose last AdSense program earnings or unpaid amounts Google withheld in their entirety, and permanently, in connection with such disablement or termination; and Third terms-of-service class seeking damages or restitution for violations of Cal. Civ. Code par. 1671(b) and the UCL, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing: "all former or current Google AdSense publishers: (1) whose AdSense accounts were subject to Google's terms of service for the locations at issue; (2) whose AdSense account Google disabled or terminated for any breach of contract, including policy violations or invalid activity, on any date between and including April 23, 2013, and the date of judgment in this matter; (3) whose last AdSense program earnings or unpaid amounts Google withheld in their entirety, and permanently, in connection with such disablement or termination; and (4) who submitted a written notice of dispute to Google within 30 day". Excluded from the proposed classes are Google's officers, directors, managerial employees, and their immediate families, as well as this Court and the Court's immediate family members. Plaintiffs request that Free Range Content, Inc. (FRC), Coconut Island Software, Inc. (CIS), Taylor Chose, and Matthew Simpson be appointed class representatives for the Rule 23(b)(2) class; that CIS be appointed for the Rule 23(b)(3) terms-and-conditions class, and that FRC be appointed for the Rule 23(b)(3) terms-of-service class. Also, plaintiffs request that Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP be appointed class counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7idAlmPE The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Robert F. Lopez, Esq. Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623 7292 Facsimile: (206) 623 0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com robl@hbsslaw.com jefff@hbsslaw.com GRADE A: De Leon et al. Seek to Certify Employees Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Gabriel De Leon, Ramon Pena, and Jose Luis Ramirez, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Grade A Construction Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00348-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify Named Plaintiff Jose Luis Ramirez as the representative of a class of: "all current and former Grade A employees who either (1) as of May 26, 2016 was not paid at a rate equal to 1.5 times his straight time rate for all banked overtime hours worked between May 26, 2014 and April 25, 2016; and/or (2) was not paid at a rate equal to 1.5 times his straight time rate for all overtime hours worked after April 25, 2016, within 31 days of when the overtime was worked." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Rcl3S8Lf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271 4500 Facsimile: (414) 271 6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com GRANITE CITY FOOD: Koenig Seeks Conditional Collective Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled CHELSEA KOENIG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GRANITE CITY FOOD & BREWERY, LTD and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, the Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-01396-MAK (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional collective certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act 2. approving issuance of Notice to all members of the putative Collective Class in accordance with Hoffman-La Roche v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989); and 3. directing production by Defendants to Plaintiff of all names and addresses of members of the collective class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xA3mJROb The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 275 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 822 3700 Facsimile: (610) 822 3800 E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com rgray@cwglaw.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322 9243 Facsimile: (412) 231 0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com bsweet@carsonlynch.com jetzel@carsonlynch.com - and - Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq. KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C. Two Penn Center Plaza 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 792 6676 Facsimile: (215) 792 6676 E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com GRANITE CITY FOOD: Koenig Seeks to Certify Tipped Employees Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CHELSEA KOENIG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GRANITE CITY FOOD & BREWERY, LTD and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, the Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-01396-MAK (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order granting: 1. certification of a Class consisting of: "all Tipped Employees (servers, bartenders, bussers, and/or food runners) who work/worked at Defendant's Pennsylvania location"; and 2. issuance of Notice to all members of the proposed Class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rjx8QLuB The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 275 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 822 3700 Facsimile: (610) 822 3800 E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com rgray@cwglaw.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322 9243 Facsimile: (412) 231 0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com bsweet@carsonlynch.com jetzel@carsonlynch.com - and - Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq. KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C. Two Penn Center Plaza 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 792 6676 Facsimile: (215) 792 6676 E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Rudel Suit Seeks to Certify Merchants Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned RUDEL CORPORATION, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02229- AET-LHG (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court before Hon. Anne E. Thompson, on June 5, 2017, for an Order: 1. certifying the following class: "Merchants who processed with Heartland and were charged an American Express Fee Adjustment in their October 2014 account statements, retroactively implementing an increased American Express Discount Fee, and that Heartland charged that increased rate for transactions occurring between November 1, 2014 and December 15, 2014. 2. appointing Plaintiff Rudel Corporation as Class Representative; and 3. appointing the law firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP as Class Counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nTVtQmy6 The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Barto, Esq. Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 421 6492 Facsimile: (212) 421 6553 E-mail: STEPHEN@SFCLASSLAW.COM RAYMOND@SFCLASSLAW.COM HORIZON FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid in "Wandersee" Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ANGIE WANDERSEE, the Plaintiff, v. HORIZON FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01176-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. District Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order granting Plaintiff's motions to stay the class certification motion. The Court said, "Plaintiff brings this putative class action, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 1692-1692p. To prevent defendant from mooting the action, plaintiff moves for class certification and to stay that motion. See Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). Plaintiff further moves for relief from this court's local rules requiring that every motion be accompanied by a supporting memorandum and imposing a briefing schedule on the parties. Civil L. R. 7 (E.D. Wis.). Defendant has not opposed these motions". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4sIQE5cj ILLINOIS: Class Certification Bid in "Koss" Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Joan B. Gottschall entered an order in the lawsuit entitled Alma Koss, et al, the Plaintiff(s), v. Felicia F. Norwood, et al, the Defendant(s), Case No. 1:17-cv-02762 (N.D. Ill.), denied without prejudice as premature Plaintiff's motion for class certification, in the interest of judicial economy. The Court said, "Status hearing is set for June 23, 2017 at 9:30 AM. If, by the date of the scheduled status hearing defendants have not been served, plaintiff should call the courtroom deputy (312-435-5641) and reset the status date. No status hearing should be held until the defendants have been served. Plaintiff is directed to advise the defendant of the status hearing. See Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015). Pursuant to LR 5.2(f), a stapled and/or bound paper copy of all electronically filed documents, including the complaint, must be delivered to chambers (2356) within one business day. Noncompliance with LR 5.2(f) will result in the imposition of a $200.00 fine payable to the Clerk of the Court, 219 South Dearborn Street, 20th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Parties are directed to discuss settlement and whether they consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge. They are further directed to meet and confer regarding a proposed discovery plan. See Judge Gottschall's civil case management information regarding pretrial case management procedures at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov". In January 2015, Governor Bruce Rauner appointed Ms. Norwood to serve as the Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (HFS). A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aY19twXH INFUSYSTEM HOLDINGS: Expects Filing of Consolidated Amended Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- InfuSystem Holdings, Inc., expects that the lead plaintiff in a securities lawsuit commenced in California will file a consolidated amended complaint that will be the operative complaint going forward, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. As a result of the restatement of the Company's financial statements as of December 31, 2015 and the first and second quarter of 2016, the Company is currently involved in a class- action lawsuit filed by shareholders. On November 8, 2016, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the "Court") (Case No. 2:16-cv-08295-ODW) against the Company and two individual defendants: Eric Steen, the Company's current Chief Executive Officer, President and director; and Jonathan Foster, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements in and/or omitted material facts from documents filed with the SEC between May 12, 2015 and November 7, 2016. The complaint asserts claims against all defendants under the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and against Messrs. Steen and Foster as control persons. The complaint seeks compensatory damages for the putative class, prejudgment and post- judgment interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. Two other shareholders subsequently filed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of their attorneys as lead counsel for the putative class. On February 17, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff for the putative class. The parties have entered into a stipulation, adopted by the Court, pursuant to which it is expected that the lead plaintiff will file a consolidated amended complaint that will be the operative complaint going forward. The Company says it has not determined that losses related to the matters are probable. Because the allegations of the operative complaint are not yet known, together with the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation generally, the Company does not have sufficient information to determine the amount or range of reasonably possible loss with respect to these matters. The Company's assessments are based on estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but that may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that might cause the Company to change those estimates and assumptions. The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend the claims asserted against them in these matters, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome for such matters. Headquartered in Madison Heights, Michigan, InfuSystem Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation that operates through operating subsidiaries, including InfuSystem Holdings USA, Inc., InfuSystem, Inc., First Biomedical, Inc., a Kansas corporation. The Company is a provider of infusion pumps and related products and services for patients in the home, oncology clinics, ambulatory surgery centers, and other sites of care from five locations in the United States and Canada. The Company provides its products and services to hospitals, oncology practices and facilities and other alternate site health care providers. INNOVAK INT'L: Bohannan Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MELISSA BOHANNAN, individually, and on behalf of a similarly situated class, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. INNOVAK INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv- 00272-WKW-WC (M.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for certification of these class and subclasses: Nationwide Class: "all persons whose personal private information (PPI) was compromised as a direct and proximate result of the Innovak Data Breach". Alabama Subclass: "all persons in Alabama whose personal private information (PPI) was compromised as a direct and proximate result of the Innovak Data Breach; and Mississippi Class: "all persons in Mississippi whose personal private information (PPI) was compromised as a direct and proximate result of the Innovak Data Breach. Excluded from the Class are the (i) owners, officers, directors, employees, agents, and/or representatives of Innovak International, Inc. and its parent entities, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, and/or assigns, and (ii) the Court, Court personnel, and members of their immediate families. Excluded from these Subclasses are the (i) owners, officers, directors, employees, agents, and/or representatives of Innovak International, Inc. and its parent entities, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, and/or assigns, and (ii) the Court, Court personnel, and members of their immediate families. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kNuPwcma The Plaintiff is represented by: Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmermann, Esq. Anil A. Mujumdar, Esq. ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983 7985 Facsimile: (888) 505 0523 E-mail: fuli@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com - and - Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Christopher T. Hellums, Esq. PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS, PC 2001 Park Place, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322 8880 Facsimile: (205) 328 2711 E-mail: pdh-efiling@pittmandutton.com jonm@pittmandutton.com chrish@pittmandutton.com LAGASSE LLC: Motion for Class Certification Withdrawn ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ALPHA TECH PET, INC., a Massachusetts corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. LAGASSE, LLC, ESSENDANT MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, Illinois limited liability companies, ESSENDANT CO., an Illinois corporation, UNITED STATIONERS INC., a Delaware corporation and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00513 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. District Judge. Thomas M. Durkin entered an order withdrawing a motion for class certification. The Defendants have stipulated that they will not make any offer or tender to Plaintiff Alpha Tech Pet, Inc. individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, including but not limited to an offer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, or a deposit of the full amount of the Plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the Plaintiff, without advance notice to Plaintiff. This stipulation does not preclude Defendants from serving an offer or tender to Plaintiff in the following circumstances: (1) If Defendants send all counsel of record for Plaintiff an e-mail notifying Plaintiff that Defendants intend to serve an offer or tender on an individual basis, then Defendants may serve such tender or offer beginning on the tenth day after the e-mail notification was sent (but not before such time); (2) Defendants may serve an offer or tender on a class-wide basis at any time. In the event that the law or circumstances change, Defendants reserve the right to assert that Plaintiff's and the class' claims are moot. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H4uNAmpl LUBY'S INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Woods" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JOHN B. WOODS, a Texas citizen, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly- situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. LUBY'S, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01146 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff moves for entry of an order certifying a class of: "all persons to whom Luby's provided an electronically-printed receipt at the point of a sale or transaction after the applicable statutory deadline (after December 4, 2006 for machines in use before January 1, 2005 or immediately for machines first used after January 1, 2005) and which receipt displayed more than the last five digits of the purchaser's credit card or debit card number". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5Q5fKv71 The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312 658 5500 Facsimile: 312 658 5555 MARATHON OIL: Baucum Seeks to Certify Advisors & Operators Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CHANCE BAUCUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARATHON OIL CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-03278 (S.D. Tex.), Baucum asks that the Court conditionally certify a class consisting of: "all persons who worked for Marathon as HSE Advisors and/or Solids Control Operators who were classified as independent contractors and paid a "day-rate" at any time since three years prior to November 6, 2013, the filing date for the Complaint". The Plaintiff worked for Defendant Marathon Oil Corporation, regularly working more than twelve-hour days for weeks at a time. Marathon paid Baucum for these long hours on a day-rate basis, paying him a flat amount for all the hours that he worked in a single day, even though day-rate workers are entitled to overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Baucum's claims are straightforward: Marathon's compensation plan for its day-rate workers (including its HSE Advisors and Solids Control Operators) violated the FLSA because it failed to pay these workers overtime. Baucum seeks conditional certification under the FLSA and authorization to send notice to other putative plaintiffs so that they have opportunity to learn of (and potentially join) this matter before their statutes of limitations expire. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OewgeFvu The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 325 1100 Facsimile: (713) 325 3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com litkin@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877 8788 Facsimile: (713) 877 8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com MARY JANE M. ELLIOTT: Buck Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned SUSAN BUCK, ANITA BECKLEY, RUBY ROBINSON, RITCHIE SWAGERTY, and DANIEL VANDERKODDE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MARY JANE M. ELLIOTT, P.C., BERNDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C., MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., and LVNV FUNDING LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00203-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs move for an order certifying classes and Subclasses: Elliott Class: "(a) every natural person; (b) against whom a money judgment, in a civil action to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, was entered by a Michigan court; (c) based on a claim for account stated, open account, and/or unjust enrichment, and not to enforce a written instrument or promissory note; (d) from whom Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C. collected or attempted to collect a judgment balance, by communicating to any person that the judgment debtor owed an amount that included postjudgment interest, calculated at a rate greater than 1% plus the average interest rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States Treasury notes during the immediately preceding six months"; Berndt Class: "(a) every natural person; (b) against whom a money judgment, in a civil action to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, was entered by a Michigan court; (c) based on a claim for account stated, open account, and/or unjust enrichment, and not to enforce a written instrument or promissory note; (d) from whom Berndt & Associates, P.C. collected or attempted to collect a judgment balance, by communicating to any person that the judgment debtor owed an amount that included postjudgment interest, calculated at a rate greater than 1% plus the average interest rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States Treasury notes during the immediately preceding six months"; Midland Subclass "(a) every natural person; (b) against whom a money judgment, in a civil action to collection a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, was entered by a Michigan court in favor of Midland Funding LLC; (c) based on a claim for account stated, open account, and/or unjust enrichment, and not to enforce a written instrument or promissory note; (d) from whom Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C. or Berndt & Associates, P.C. collected or attempted to collect a judgment balance, by communicating to any person that the judgment debtor owed an amount that included postjudgment interest, calculated at a rate greater than 1% plus the average interest rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States Treasury notes during the immediately preceding six months; and LVNV Subclass: "(a) every natural person; (b) against whom a money judgment, in a civil action to collection a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, was entered by a Michigan court in favor of LVNV Funding LLC; (c) based on a claim for account stated, open account, and/or unjust enrichment, and not to enforce a written instrument or promissory note; (d) from whom Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C. or Berndt & Associates, P.C. collected or attempted to collect a judgment balance, by communicating to any person that the judgment debtor owed an amount that included postjudgment interest, calculated at a rate greater than 1% plus the average interest rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States Treasury notes during the immediately preceding six months". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Aw6lxUCz The Plaintiffs are represented by: Phillip C. Rogers, Esq. Kevin J. Rogers, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP C. ROGERS 6140 28th Street SE, Suite 115 Grand Rapids, MI 49546-6938 Telephone: (616) 776 1176 E-mail: ConsumerLawyer@aol.com RogersAttorney@gmail.com - and - Theodore J. Westbrook, Esq. WESTBROOK LAW PLLC Attorney for Plaintiffs 6140 28th Street SE, Suite 115 Grand Rapids, MI 49546-6938 Telephone: (616) 288 9548 E-mail: twestbrook@westbrook-law.net MATCH GROUP: "Perkins" Suit Seeks Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned CHAD PERKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MATCH GROUP, INC., d/b/a OKCUPID, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02988 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "all natural persons domiciled in the United States or its territories who, within the applicable statutes of limitation, paid Match Group amounts for its premium OkCupid "A-List" service during such time as a programming error, software malfunction, bug or similar factor caused the reported number of "likes" to exceed the actual number of persons who had liked the subscriber's profile". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WDeCi4Ih The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Sweetnam, Esq. SWEETNAM LLC 100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 757 1888 E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com MDL 2420: DPP and IPP Purchasers' Class Certification Bids Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation Case No. 4:13-md-02420-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order: 1. denying without prejudice IPP Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the grounds that they have failed to establish typicality and their ability to prove antitrust impact on a class-wide basis; 2. denying without prejudice DPP Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the grounds that they have failed to establish typicality, adequacy, and their ability to prove antitrust impact on a class-wide basis; 3. granting in part motion of Panasonic and Sanyo to strike the proposed expert testimony of Dr. Edward E. Leamer on the grounds that his analyses rely on too narrow a range of data; 4. denying Motion of Panasonic and Sanyo to strike the proposed expert testimony of Dr. Rosa M. Abrantes-Metz; 5. denying motion of Toshiba to strike certain testimony of DPP Expert Dr. Roger Noll on the grounds stated in the motion; and 6. granting in part motion of Toshiba to strike certain proposed testimony of DPP Expert Mr. James L. Kaschmitter and the statements concerning the percentage of pack costs comprised of cell costs. The case is an antitrust action which concerns two putative plaintiff classes, indirect and direct purchasers, who allege a multi-year, international price-fixing conspiracy among Japanese and Korean manufacturers of lithium ion battery cells, as well as their American subsidiaries. The putative class representatives are denominated the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (IPPs) and the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs, and collectively with the IPPs, "Plaintiffs"). Both putative classes have filed motions for class certification. In connection with those motions, defendants have moved to strike or exclude certain expert reports. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CkFDkH0Y MDL 2740: Bid to Certify Class Sought in Taxotere Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit RE: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02740-KDE-MBN (E.D. La.), Plaintiffs Sheila Matthews, Debra Chetta and Emily Barre move the Court to certify a class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xufTmo0R TAXOTERE(R) is a prescription medication used in the treatment of breast cancer. According to Gibbs Law Group, one of the plaintiff law firms, a breast cancer survivor alleges the use of Taxotere (generic docetaxel) during her chemotherapy treatment has resulted in permanent, disfiguring hair loss. According to the lawsuit, Taxotere manufacturer Sanofi-Aventis knew as early as 2005 that the drug may cause permanent alopecia in as many as 9.2% of Taxotere patients, and intentionally withheld this information from the medical community and the public. On October 4, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred 28 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407. See ___ F.Supp.3d ___ (J.P.M.L. 2016). Since that time, 222 additional action(s) have been transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana. With the consent of that court, all the actions have been assigned to the Honorable Kurt D. Engelhardt. Matthews et al. are represented by: Val Patrick Exnicios, Esq. LISKA, EXNICIOS & NUNGESSER Attorneys-At-Law 1515 Poydras Street 14th Floor, Ste. 1400 New Orleans, LA. 70112 Telephone: (504) 410 9611 Facsimile: (504) 410 9937 - and - Michael Stag, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SMITH STAG, L.L.C. 365 Canal St Ste 2850 New Orleans LA, 701301163 Telephone: (504) 593 9600 Facsimile: (504) 593 9601 The Gibbs firm represents Plaintiff Valesta Collins. The firm's lawyers working on the case are: Karen Barth Menzies, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 400 Continental Blvd, 6th Floor El Segundo, California 90245 Telephone: (510) 350-9240 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 Email: kbm@classlawgroup.com - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Amy M. Zeman, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com amz@classlawgroup.com MERCHANTS CREDIT: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Certification of 4 Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JANNETTE TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCHANTS CREDIT ADJUSTERS, INC., PANSING, HOGAN ERNST & BACHMAN, L.L.P., the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00452-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying these classes: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Class No. 1: "(i) all persons with addresses in Nebraska (ii) against whom Defendants filed a county court collection complaint in the form of Exhibit A or such a MCA collection lawsuit was pending or proceeding (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt (iv) which, as shown by the nature of the alleged debt, Defendants' records, or the records of the original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes (v) during the period one year prior to the date of filing this action"; FDCPA Class No. 2: "(i) all persons with addresses in Nebraska (ii) to whom Defendants sent, or caused to be sent Requests for Admissions in the form of Exhibit C (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt (iv) which, as shown by the nature of the alleged debt, Defendants' records, or the records of the original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes (v) during the period one year prior to the date of filing this Action"; Nebraska Consumer Protection Act Class consisting of: Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA) Class No. 1: "(i) all persons with addresses in Nebraska (ii) against whom Defendants filed a county court collection complaint or such a MCA collection lawsuit was pending or proceeding (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt (iv) which, as shown by the nature of the alleged debt, Defendants' records, or the records of the original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes (v) during the period four years prior to the date of filing this action"; and NCPA Class No. 2: "persons with addresses in Nebraska (ii) to whom Defendants sent, or caused to be sent Requests for Admissions (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt (iv) which, as shown by the nature of the alleged debt, Defendants' records, or the records of the original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes (v) during the period four years prior to the date of filing this action. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EmxNySJI The Plaintiff is represented by: Pamela A. Car, Esq. William L. Reinbrecht, Esq. CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO 8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105 Omaha, NE 68124 Telephone: (402) 391 8484 Facsimile: (402) 391 1103 E-mail: pacar@cox.net - and - Tregg R. Lunn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TREGG LUNN 830 L Street, Suite 200 Lincoln, NE 68508 Telephone: 402 730-7012 E-mail: tregg@tregglunnlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq. Shilee T. Mullin, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 13520 California Street, Suite 290 Omaha, NE 68154 - and - William F. Hargens, Esq. Lauren R. Goodman, Esq. MCGRATH NORTH MULLIN & KRATZ, PC, LLO First National Tower, Suite 3700 1601 Dodge Street Omaha, NE 68102 MIDLAND CREDIT: Class Certified in "Leinenweber" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Harry D. Leinenweber entered an order in the lawsuit titled RENETRICE R. PIERRE, Individually and on Behalf of others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Kansas Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02895 (N.D. Ill.), granted Plaintiff's Second Motion to certify a class of: "all persons with Illinois addresses to whom Midland Credit Management, Inc. sent, from March 7, 2015 through March 7, 2016, a letter containing the following statement: "The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it, we will not report it to any credit reporting agency, and payment or non-payment will not affect your credit score"." The Court said. "In a recurring theme, Midland's arguments miss the mark. "True, the FDCPA allows for individual recoveries of up to $1000. But this assumes that the plaintiff will be aware of her rights, willing to subject herself to all the burdens of suing and able to find an attorney willing to take her case." In this case, allowing the action to proceed on a class wide basis aligns with both the purpose of class actions (incentivizing aggregation of claims where little incentive to sue individually would otherwise exist) and the purpose of the FDCPA (protecting consumers from abusive debt collection practices). Proceeding as a class action will also further judicial efficiency. Rather than this Court assuming the mantle of Punxsutawney and counsel the part of Bill Murray's "Phil" resolving the legality of Midland's form "discount" letter can occur once and for all -- instead of (potentially) 68,754 times." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qoxEUpdK MOMS IN MOTION: "LaRue" Suit Seeks to Certify Facilitators Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MARYANN LaRUE, on her own behalf, and for all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MOMS IN MOTION, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-00162-GEC (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certify a collective action to include: "all Facilitators, Service Facilitators and Senior Service Facilitators employed by the Defendant at any point in the last three years"; and 2. ordering the Defendant to provide the names and addresses of all such persons to undersigned counsel and approving notice and consent forms to be sent by undersigned counsel to such persons. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Fjiu44g8 The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Strelka, Esq. L. Leigh R. Strelka, Esq. STRELKA LAW OFFICE, PC Warehouse Row 119 Norfolk Avenue, S.W., Suite 330 Roanoke, VA 24011 Telephone: (540) 283 0802 E-mail: thomas@strelkalaw.com leigh@strelklaw.com MULTI PACKAGING: Supplements Disclosures to Appease Shareholders ---------------------------------------------------------------- Multi Packaging Solutions International Limited said in its Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2017, that it reached an agreement with the Plaintiffs of the three purported class action complaints challenging its acquisition by WestRock Company to file supplemental disclosures regarding the transaction. On January 23, 2017, Multi Packaging Solutions International Limited, a Bermuda exempted company ("MPS"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with WestRock Company, a Delaware corporation ("WestRock"), and WRK Merger Sub Limited, a Bermuda exempted company ("Merger Sub"), which Merger Agreement stated the terms and conditions on which WestRock would acquire MPS (the "Proposed Transaction"). As previously disclosed, between February 28, 2017 and March 8, 2017, three purported class action complaints concerning the Proposed Transaction were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against all or some of the following: MPS, certain of MPS's current executive officers and directors, WestRock, and Merger Sub (together, the "Merger Litigation"). The plaintiffs in the Merger Litigation claimed that the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed by MPS with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, and mailed to the MPS shareholders on or about March 7, 2017 (the "Proxy Statement"), omitted material information regarding the Proposed Transaction. The parties to the Merger Litigation subsequently engaged in arm's-length negotiations to attempt to resolve the claims asserted in the Merger Litigation, and reached an agreement whereby MPS would file on this Current Report on Form 8-K (this "Form 8-K") certain supplemental disclosures regarding the Proposed Transaction. The parties to the Merger Agreement believe that no further disclosure is required to supplement the Proxy Statement. However, to avoid the risk that the Merger Litigation may delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the Proposed Transaction, MPS hereby makes the supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement. NORTHLAND GROUP: Settlement in "Hyun" Suit Has Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled HYUN SOON CHIJNG, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHLAND GROUP INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-06246-SCM (D.N.J.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge entered an order: 1. granting a motion for preliminary approval of proposed settlement; 2. directing Parties to comply with the schedule and to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement; and 3. certifying Settlement Class for purposes of settlement: "all consumers residing in the State of New Jersey, to whom Defendant Northland Group Inc. sent a collection letter which letter (a) was dated August 17, 2014 through and including August 17, 2015, (b) was seeking to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed to US Bank, NA., and (d) was sent in a windowed envelope such that the account number associated with the debt was visible from outside the envelope". Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), the Court appointed Andrew R. Wolf and Bharati Sharma Patel of The Wolf Law Firm, LLC and Yongmoon Kim of the Kim Law Firm LLC as Class Counsel. The Settlement Agreement provides in part for Defendant to (1) establish a settlement fund in the amount set forth in the Settlement Agreement; (2) pay the Class Representative's individual statutory damages and incentive payment, subject to approval by the Court and (3) pay attorneys' fees and costs (including the cost of settlement administration) pursuant to the FDPCA in the amount of $91,30l.80. The Plaintiff has selected DRRT as the Settlement Administrator. DRRT may be reached at: Alexander Reus, Managing Partner DRRT 340 West Flagler Street, 2nd Floor Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 760-8012 E-mail: areus@drrt.com A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E5cLLLYB OFF LEASE ONLY: Mohamed Seeks to Certify Spam Text Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Ray Mohamed, individually and, on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Off Lease Only, INC., a Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv- 23352-MGC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons in the United States (i) who received a text message (ii) on his or her cellular telephone (iii) from InstantCarOffer.com for Off Lease Only, Inc. (iv) sent using InstantCarOffer.com's systems (v) from a period of four (4) years prior to the filing of the initial Complaint, September 4, 2011, to the date of class certification". 2. appointing Plaintiff as class representative; 3. appointing Scott D. Owens, P.A., Hiraldo, P.A., Bret Lusskin, P.A. and Farmer, Jaffee, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos and Lehrman, P.L. as class counsel. The case alleges Off Lease Only, Inc.'s willful disregard for the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and use of automated technology to bombard individuals with text message advertisements. From April 2014 to May 2015, Off Lease Only, through its agent Instantcaroffer.com, sent 78,1761 automated spam text messages to approximately 62,8722 cellular telephone numbers in violation of the TCPA.3 All of these text messages were sent using an automatic telephone dialing system, and none were sent with the prior express consent of the recipients. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jDePhnQa The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D.OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589 0588 Facsimile: (954) 337 0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com - and - Bret L. Lusskin, Esq. BRET LUSSKIN, P.A. 20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 302 235 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 454 5841 Facsimile: (954) 454 5844 E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: 954.400.4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. Steven R. Jaffe, Esq. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: seth@pathtojustice.com steve@pathtojustice.com OPTUM INC: "Mauthe" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OPTUM, INC., OPTUMINSIGHT, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01643-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves for entry of an order certifying a class of: "each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone facsimile messages ("faxes") about the Optum Provider Database product, but not stating on its first page that the fax recipient may request that the sender not send any future fax and that the sender's failure to comply with such a request within 30 days would be unlawful". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RHroJl6B The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC P.O. Box 7255 New Castle, PA 16107 Telephone: (248) 562 1320 Facsimile: (888) 769 1774 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658 5500 Facsimile: (312) 658 5555 E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com OPTUM360 LLC: "Conner" Suit Seeks Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled STEVEN A. CONNER DPM, P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OPTUM360, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01642-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves for entry of an order certifying a class of: "each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone facsimile messages ("faxes") about goods, products, or services available for purchase from optumcoding.com or optum360coding.com". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TEoysmqZ The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC P.O. Box 7255 New Castle, PA 16107 Telephone: (248) 562 1320 Facsimile: (888) 769 1774 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658 5500 Facsimile: (312) 658 5555 E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com PEABODY ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Lynn" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peabody Energy Corporation awaits ruling on a motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit initiated by Lori J. Lynn in Missouri, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On June 11, 2015, a former Peabody Investments Corp. (PIC) employee filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of three of the Company's or its subsidiaries' 401(k) retirement plans and certain participants and beneficiaries of the plans. The lawsuit, which was brought against the Peabody Energy Corporation (PEC), Peabody Holding Company, LLC (PHC), PIC and a number of the Company's and PIC's current and former executives and employees, alleges breach of fiduciary duties and seeks monetary damages under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) relating to the offering of the Peabody Energy Stock Fund as an investment option in the 401(k) retirement plans. On September 8, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, among other things, named a new plaintiff and named all of the current members and two former members of the relevant boards of directors as defendants. The class period (December 2012 to present) remains unchanged. On November 9, 2015, the defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of all claims. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 11, 2016 that included new allegations against the Company related to the Company's disclosure to investors of risks associated with climate change and related legislation and regulations. The second amended complaint also added the three committees responsible for administering the three 401(k) retirement plans at issue and dropped several individual defendants, including current directors of PEC's board of directors. As a result of filing the Chapter 11 Cases, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the three Debtor defendants (PEC, PIC and PHC) and elected to proceed against the individual defendants and the three named committees with the second amended complaint. On November 17, 2016, the parties presented arguments on the defendants' motion to dismiss. A ruling has not yet been issued. Peabody Energy Corporation is the world's largest private-sector coal company by volume. The Company owns interests in 23 coal mining operations located in the United States and Australia. In addition to its mining operations, the Company markets and brokers coal from other coal producers, both as principal and agent, and trades coal and freight-related contracts through trading and business offices in Australia, China, Germany, the United Kingdom and the U.S. PERCHERON FIELD: Suit Seeks to Certify Right of Way Agents Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ERIC BOYINGTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PERCHERON FIELD SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-00090-KRG (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all Right of Way Agents who worked for Defendant Percheron Field Services, LLC, or its predecessors in interest (see Mem. Op., ECF No. 97, at 5), on pipeline projects in Pennsylvania between May 7, 2011 and December 31, 2014"; and 2. appointing Employment Rights Group, John R. Linkosky, Esquire, and Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mD9MrNVb The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP 100 First Avenue, Suite 650 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 227 0763 E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com - and - John R. Linkosky, Esq. JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES 715 Washington Avenue Carnegie, PA 15106 Telephone: (412) 278 1280 E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net - and - Bruce C. Fox, Esq. Jeffrey B. Cadle, Esq. OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP 500 Grant Street, Ste. 5240 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone.: (412) 566 1500 E-mail: bruce.fox@obermayer.com jeffrey.cadle@obermayer.com PERSOLVE LLC: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled GORDON SIEVERT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PERSOLVE, LLC d/b/a ACCOUNT RESOLUTION ASSOCIATES and CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00586-DEJ (E.D., Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks that the Court enter an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BM1hCduC The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Settlement in "Klippel" Suit Has Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned RUSSELL KLIPPEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC and CATHERINE M. HEDGEMAN, ESQ., the Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-01061-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order: 1. granting a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and directing Plaintiff and Defendant to comply with the schedule as set forth in the Order; 2. directing Defendant to comply with its obligation to serve written notice of the proposed class settlement to the appropriate governmental representatives pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 and the terms of the Settlement Agreement, no later than 10 days after the date of this Order; and 3. preliminarily certifying Settlement Class for purposes of final settlement: "all those individuals who opt-in timely, who meet the following definition: Natural persons who were sued by PRA in a state court consumer collection action brought within the Northern District of New York in a city court in this District in an action in which a summons misrepresented the state court's jurisdiction over the defendant by stating in the summons , in relevant part: "BASIS FOR VENUE: Defendant resides in jurisdiction of CITY OF " [or any substantially similar statement], in which the address of the state court defendant's residence is listed in the summons and/or complaint, and is outside the jurisdiction of the relevant city court, and, in which the summons was filed within one year of the initiation of the instant class action". The Settlement Class will only include individuals who received a summons and/or complaint signed by Catherine Hedgeman, Esq. The Settlement Class will not include anyone who filed for bankruptcy after the alleged violation took place or anyone who is deceased. For purposes of determining whether an address listed in a summons is "outside the jurisdiction of the relevant city court," the parties agree that this shall mean that the residence of a consumer to whom a summons was addressed was not in the city for whose city court the collection action was filed in or in a town that is (i) within the same county and (ii) contiguous to the city by land. A Fairness Hearing shall be held before this Court at 10:00 a.m., on September 6, 2017 (or sometime that week, but not sooner than 110 days after entry of this Order), in Courtroom No. 5 at the James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Albany, NY 12207, on the proposed Settlement including: (a) whether to grant final approval to the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate and issue an Order dismissing the Complaint with prejudice; (b) whether Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and costs is reasonable and (c) whether to approve the service payment to Plaintiff. This hearing may be adjourned to a later date without further or prior notice by oral announcement by the Court or by written order. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GKCgbEVw PREMIER CONSTRUCTION: Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled SEAN PATTERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PREMIER CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00662-SLT-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the court before the Hon. Sandra L. Townes, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, for an Order: 1. granting preliminary approval of a proposed settlement agreement; 2. preliminarily certifying, for settlement purposes only and pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the parties, the proposed collective class pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA and the proposed NYLL Settlement Class pursuant to FRCP 23, as described in the Settlement Agreement and Amended Complaint, all for the purposes of providing notice to the members of the proposed Settlement Classes; 3. approving the form and content of, and directing the distribution of, the proposed Notice of Class Action and Claim and Release Form, annexed to the Proposed Settlement Agreement, which upon this Court's approval will be translated into Spanish, to ensure that the putative class members fully understand their options under the Settlement Agreement; 4. appointing Plaintiff's Counsel, Joseph & Norinsberg, LLC, as Class Counsel representing the Plaintiff and classes named in the Amended Complaint and in the Settlement Agreement for purposes of the Settlement; 5. appointing Sean Patterson, the Plaintiff named in the Amended Complaint, as Settlement Class Representative; 6. appointing Settlement Services Inc. (a subsidiary of Garden City Group, Inc.) as Settlement Administrator; and 7. granting any relief that the Court finds just and proper. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BfbTeG6o The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Chaya Gourarie, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 225 Broadway Suite 2700 New York, N.Y. 10007 Telephone: (212) 791 5396/7 Facsimile: (212) 406 6890 The Defendants are represented by: RABINOWITZ & GALINA ESQS 94 Willis Avenue Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 739 8222 Facsimile: (516) 739 8225 RBS CITIZENS: "Reinig" Suit Seeks Certification of 10 Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled ALEX REINIG, et al. the Plaintiffs, v. RBS CITIZENS, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-01541-AJ (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an Order: A. certifying the following classes: 1. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for Citizens throughout the United States for violations of Pennsylvania law; 2. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for Citizens in Connecticut for violations of Connecticut law; 3. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for Ohio in Connecticut for violations of Ohio law; 4. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for Citizens in Illinois for violations of Illinois law; 5. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for Citizens in New Hampshire for violations of New Hampshire law; 6. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for Citizens in Rhode Island for violations of Rhode Island law; 7. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for Citizens in Massachusetts for violations of Massachusetts law; 8. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for in Michigan for violations of Michigan law; 9. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for Citizens in New York for violations of New York law; and 10. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for Citizens in North Carolina for violations of North Carolina law. B. appointing the Named Plaintiffs as class representatives of their respective classes; and C. appointing Joshua S. Boyette, Justin L. Swidler, and Daniel A. Horowitz as class counsel for all classes. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h8HPvFWz The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua S. Boyette, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Hwy N, Ste 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled TANYA LAFRENIER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00534-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay the class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cEaaLF76 The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com RFI CONSTRUCTION: Conditional Certification of FLSA Class Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled JOAQUIN LUNA-REYES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RFI CONSTRUCTION, LLC, RUPERT BURROWS, SKANSKA USA BUILDING, H.J. RUSSELL & COMPANY, and METCON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:14-CV- 235-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff moves the Court: 1. for conditional certification of the action as a representative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); 2. for approval of the proposed FLSA/NCWHA notice of the action and the consent form in both English and Spanish; 3. to compel production of updated list of names, last known mailing addresses, alternate addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of employment for all putative plaintiffs/class members; 4. for permission to email and/or text message the proposed Notice, along with utilizing regular U.S. Mail; 5. for permission to post the Notice, along with the consent forms, at all Defendants' current jobsites; 6. to certify this action as a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) claims; and 7. to appoint the named Plaintiff Luna-Reyes as class representative, and The Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC, and Lee & Braziel, LLP as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c5Ikk9cN The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Michael B. Cohen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741 8693 Facsimile: (919) 869 1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com mcohen@gildahernandezlaw.com - and - J. Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP 1801 N. Lamar St. Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749 1400 Facsimile: (214) 749 1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com ROYAL BANCSHARES: Expects Resolution of Appeal in Fourth Quarter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the appeal from the approval of settlement is expected to be resolved in the third or fourth quarter of 2017. Prior to December 31, 2013, Royal Bank held a 60% equity interest in each of Crusader Servicing Corporation ("CSC") and Royal Tax Lien Services, LLC ("RTL"). CSC and RTL acquired, through public auction, delinquent tax liens in various jurisdictions thereby assuming a superior lien position to most other lien holders, including mortgage lien holders. In 2012, the former President of CSC and RTL, CSC, RTL and the Company were named defendants, among others, in a Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ("Court") on behalf of a proposed class of taxpayers who became delinquent in paying their municipal tax obligations. The Complaint alleged a conspiracy to rig bids in municipal tax lien auctions. During 2013, the Company, Royal Bank, CSC, and RTL reached a settlement agreement with plaintiffs to settle the litigation for $1.65 million and other terms and conditions, including an opportunity for members of the proposed settlement class whose tax liens are currently held by CSC or RTL to redeem those liens for a one-time cash payment equaling 85% of the redemption amount by making such payment within 35 days of the date of written notice. The proposed settlement class does not include, and therefore the offer to redeem does not apply to, tax liens acquired at 0% interest or at a premium. The settlement amount has already been paid into an escrow account. In 2016, the Court approved the settlement after notice and a hearing. The plaintiffs are appealing the Court's decision. It is expected to be resolved in the third or fourth quarter of 2017. Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc., is a Pennsylvania business corporation and a bank holding company registered under the Federal Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. Headquartered in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, the principal activities of the Company are supervising Royal Bank America, which engages in general banking business principally in Montgomery, Delaware, Chester, Bucks, Philadelphia and Berks counties in Pennsylvania, central and southern New Jersey, and Delaware. RUSHMORE LOAN: "Williams" Suit Seeks Certification of 6 Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MATTHEW D. WILLIAMS, on behalf of plaintiff and a class, the Plaintiff, v. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; MCCALLA RAYMER LEIBERT PIERCE, LLC, successor by merger to Hunt Leibert Jacobson, P.C.; and GMAT LEGAL TITLE TRUST 2013-1, also known as GMAT 2013-1 TRUST, by U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00538-SRU (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying three classes for Count I and three classes for Count II, as follows: Count I: Class A consists of (a) all individuals (b) from whom Rushmore sought (by any means)late charges (c) incurred after acceleration of a loan (d) at any time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 21 days after the filing of this action. Class B consists of (a) all individuals (b) from whom McCalla sought (by any means) late charges (c) incurred after acceleration of a loan (d) at any time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 21 days after the filing of this action. Class C consists of (a) all individuals (b) where late charges were sought on behalf of GMAT 2013 (by any means) (c) incurred after acceleration of a loan (d) at any time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 21 days after the filing of this action. Count II: Class A consists of (a) all individuals (b) against whom Rushmore caused to be filed a foreclosure complaint (c) which included a page describing validation or dispute rights similar to those in 15 U.S.C. section 1692g (d) at any time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 21 days after the filing of this action. Class B consists of (a) all individuals (b) against whom McCalla filed a foreclosure complaint (c) which included a page describing validation or dispute rights similar to those in 15 U.S.C. section 1692g (d) at any time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 21 days after the filing of this action. Class C consists of (a) all individuals (b) against whom GMAT 2013 filed a foreclosure complaint (c) which included a page describing validation or dispute rights similar to those in 15 U.S.C. section 1692g (d) at any time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 21 days after the filing of this action. The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Joanne Faulkner and Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. The Defendant Rushmore acquired servicing of plaintiff's loan, after it was in default. The Defendant GMAT 2013 claims to have acquired ownership of the loan, after it was in default. On July 21, 2016, Rushmore caused a foreclosure lawsuit to be filed against plaintiff Matthew D. Williams. The lawsuit was filed in the name of GMAT 2013, as alleged owner of the loan. Hunt Leibert Jacobson, P.C., now McCalla, was counsel for GMAT 2013. On August 2, 2016, Rushmore sent the letter seeking payment of post- acceleration late charges. Plaintiff alleges two FDCPA violations. Count I alleges that defendants seek to collect post-acceleration late charges, which were not authorized. A mortgagee or servicer is not entitled to late fees after acceleration. Count II complains that the foreclosure complaint includes a notice similar to a notice of rights under 15 U.S.C. section 1692g. The inclusion of such a notice with a complaint is confusing to the least sophisticated consumer, in that it suggests a means of responding to the complaint other than as specified in the summons. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gN8EdVof The Plaintiff is represented by: Joanne Faulkner, Esq. 123 Avon Street New Haven, CT 06511 Telephone: (203) 772-0395 E-mail: faulknerlawoffice@snet.net - and - Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. Heather A. Kolbus, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603-1824 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 E-mail courtecl@edcombs.com The Defendants are represented by: Lee Perres, Esq. McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC 1 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60602 SALANDER ENTERPRISES: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued ---------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order in the lawsuit styled Nyoaky Williams, the Plaintiff, v. Salander Enterprises, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02591 (N.D. Ill.), continuing the proceedings with respect to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 10, 2017, the motion hearings set for April 17, 2017 are stricken. This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XlbYQPI9 SEAFOOD JUNCTION: "MORRIS" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled JASON MORRIS and SARITA NORMAN, individual and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SEAFOOD JUNCTION, INC., SEAFOOD JUNCTION No. 3, INC., MOHAMAD JALAB, an individual, SEAFOOD JUNCTION No. 4, INC., IMAN ABDELGHANI, an individual, LAYLA 08, INC., d/b/a SEAFOOD JUNCTION, EYAD ALHJOUJ, an individual, and FOUR BROTHERS 1 INC., d/b/a SEAFOOD JUNCTION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07002 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class and appoint counsel for Plaintiffs as class counsel. The Plaintiffs brought their claims against Defedants under Faior Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The lawsuit asserts Defedants knowingly required or permitted Plaintiffs to perform work up to forty hours per week and work in excess of 40 hours per week without receiving the full amount of minimum or regular wages and overtime wages earned and owed to them. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=551LZzfA The Plaintiffs are represented by: Pasha Vaziri, Esq. VAZIRI LAW LLC 111 W. Washington St., Ste. 1500 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 690 2610 E-mail: pvaziri@vazirilawllc.com SEARS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Class Suits in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Sears Holdings Corporation continues to defend itself against class action lawsuits alleging its operations fail to comply with California laws, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2017, for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2017. The Company said: "We also are a defendant in several putative or certified class action lawsuits in California relating to alleged failure to comply with California laws pertaining to certain operational, marketing, and pricing practices. The California laws alleged to have been violated in each of these lawsuits provide the potential for significant statutory penalties." At this time, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuits. Sears Holdings Corporation is the parent company of Kmart Holding Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co. The Company was formed as a Delaware corporation in 2004 in connection with the merger of Kmart and Sears. The Company is an integrated retailer with significant physical and intangible assets, as well as virtual capabilities enabled through technology. The Company operates a national network of stores with 1,430 full-line and specialty retail stores in the United States operating through Kmart and Sears. SEARS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Sears Holdings Corporation continues to defend itself against class action lawsuits alleging violations of wage and hour laws, according to the Company's March 21, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2017. The Company said: "We are a defendant in several lawsuits containing class or collective action allegations in which the plaintiffs are current and former hourly and salaried associates who allege violations of various wage and hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining to alleged misclassification of certain of our employees, the failure to pay overtime, and/or the failure to pay for missed meal and rest periods, and other payroll violations. The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both. Further, certain of these proceedings are in jurisdictions with reputations for aggressive application of laws and procedures against corporate defendants." At this time, the Company says it is not able to either predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuits. Sears Holdings Corporation is the parent company of Kmart Holding Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co. The Company was formed as a Delaware corporation in 2004 in connection with the merger of Kmart and Sears. The Company is an integrated retailer with significant physical and intangible assets, as well as virtual capabilities enabled through technology. The Company operates a national network of stores with 1,430 full-line and specialty retail stores in the United States operating through Kmart and Sears. SEARS HOLDINGS: Matters Over Asbestos Exposure Remain Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Proceedings and investigations relating to environmental and asbestos exposure remain pending, Sears Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2017, for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2017. The Company said: "We are subject to various other legal and governmental proceedings and investigations, including some involving the practices and procedures in our more highly regulated businesses. Some matters contain class action allegations, environmental and asbestos exposure allegations and other consumer-based, regulatory or qui tam claims, each of which may seek compensatory, punitive or treble damage claims (potentially in large amounts), as well as other types of relief. Additionally, some of these claims or actions, such as the qui tam claims, have the potential for significant statutory penalties." At this time, the Company says it is not able to either predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a potential range of loss with respect to these lawsuits. Sears Holdings Corporation is the parent company of Kmart Holding Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co. The Company was formed as a Delaware corporation in 2004 in connection with the merger of Kmart and Sears. The Company is an integrated retailer with significant physical and intangible assets, as well as virtual capabilities enabled through technology. The Company operates a national network of stores with 1,430 full-line and specialty retail stores in the United States operating through Kmart and Sears. SOUTHERN HEALTH: "Medley" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled ELLA MEDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00003 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. requesting for authorization to proceed as a collective action for overtime compensation, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of numerous employees of Defendant who were denied proper overtime compensation; 2. directing Defendant to immediately provide a list of names, last known addresses, and last known telephone numbers for all employees of Defendant who worked within the past three (3) years and who were paid under Defendant's version of the fluctuating workweek, or non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked within the past three (3) years and who were worked off the clock; and 3. requesting that notice be mailed all potential plaintiffs so that they can assert their claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CEySWCyn The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Russell, Esq. Emily S. Emmons, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: 615-354-1144 E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com eemmons@gilbertfirm.com - and - Ryan P. Durham, Esq. Ben Boston, Esq. Ryan P. Durham, Esq. Cameron Hoffmeyer, Esq. BOSTON, HOLT, SOCKWELL & DURHAM, PLLC Post Office Box 357 235 Waterloo Street Lawrenceburg, TN 38464 Telephone: (931) 762 7167 The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth S. Washko, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. SunTrust Plaza 401 Commerce Street, Suite 1200 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 254 1900 SPARK NETWORKS: Wins Final OK of Accord Resolving Israeli Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Spark Networks, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Court has entered final approval of the settlement agreement to resolve these cases: Israeli Consumer Actions Ben-Jacob vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd., Gever vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. and Korland vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. Three class action law suits have been filed in Israel alleging inter alia violations of the Israel Consumer Protection Law of 1981. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. ("Spark Israel") was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as a Class Action in the Ben-Jacob action on January 14, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that Spark Israel refused to cancel her subscription and provide a refund for unused periods and claims that such a refusal is in violation of the Consumer Protection Law. Spark Israel was served with a Statement of Claim and a motion to Certify it as a Class Action in the Gever action on January 21, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that Spark Israel renewed his one month subscription without receiving his positive agreement in advance and claims that such renewal is prohibited under the Consumer Protection Law and its regulations. Spark Israel was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as a Class Action in the Korland action on February 12, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that Spark Israel refused to give her a full refund and charged her the price of a one month subscription to the JDate website in violation of the Consumer Protection Law. In each of these three cases, the plaintiff is seeking personal damages and damages on behalf of a defined group. On May 8, 2014, the Court granted Spark Israel's motion to consolidate all three cases. All three cases are now consolidated and will be litigated jointly. Spark Israel's combined response to these motions to certify the class actions was filed November 1, 2014, and the plaintiffs responded to the combined response. The parties had a hearing before the judge on December 24, 2014. Following the hearing the judge ordered that the pleadings filed by the parties be transferred to the Israel Consumer Council ("ICC") so that the ICC can provide its position as to the parties' allegations within 90 days. The ICC issued its opinion on April 1, 2015. Following the filing of the ICC opinion, the parties filed briefs addressing the ICC opinion. On January 7, 2016, the parties advised the Court that they have agreed on the terms of a settlement agreement, and jointly moved to approve the agreement and give it the effect of a judgment. According to the terms of the settlement agreement, clients who bought a subscription to JDate.co.il on October 12, 2008 or later will be entitled to receive certain benefits. The settlement agreement, which provides for compensation and legal fees, will only come into effect if the court approves it. On January 14, 2016 the Court ordered the parties to publish the terms of the proposed settlement agreement. The Court allowed for the Attorney General or any person who wishes to object to the settlement or exclude himself from the class to file their position with the Court through March 10, 2016. On March 10, 2016, the ICC filed an objection to the settlement agreement, arguing inter alia that the benefits offered to the clients are insufficient, and that the Company's new business model does not comply with certain legal requirements. The Company and the plaintiffs filed their responses on March 24, 2016. On April 14, 2016, the Attorney General notified the Court that it has no objection to the settlement agreement. On February 8, 2017, a hearing was held during which the judge asked questions about the settlement agreement. The Company and the plaintiffs filed a revised settlement agreement on February 18, 2017, for the judge's final approval. On February 28, 2017, the judge approved the settlement agreement, which provided for compensation and legal fees under terms from the original settlement agreement. The Company has recorded an accrual of $52,000 for the probable cost related to resolving this matter as of December 31, 2016. Spark Networks, Inc., creates communities that help individuals form life-long relationships with others that share their interests and values. The Company's core properties, JDate and ChristianMingle, are communities geared towards singles of the Jewish and Christian faiths. STAR BULK: Awaits Order in Appeal From Shareholder Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Star Bulk Carriers Corp. awaits judgment in an appeal from the dismissal of a shareholder lawsuit filed in New York, according to the Company's March 22, 2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On October 23, 2014, a purported shareholder (the "Plaintiff") of the Company filed a derivative and putative class action lawsuit in New York state court against the Company's Chief Executive Officer, members of its Board of Directors and several of its shareholders and related entities. The Company has been named as a nominal defendant in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the acquisition of Oceanbulk and purchase of several Excel Vessels were the result of self-dealing by various defendants and that the Company entered into the respective transactions on unfair terms. The lawsuit further alleges that, as a result of these transactions, several defendants' interests in the Company have increased and that the Plaintiff's interest in the Company has been diluted. The lawsuit also alleges that the Company's management has engaged in other conduct that has resulted in corporate waste. The lawsuit seeks cancellation of all shares issued to the defendants in connection with the acquisition of Oceanbulk, unspecified monetary damages, the replacement of some or all members of the Company's Board of Directors and its Chief Executive Officer, and other relief. The Company believes the claims are completely without merit, denies them and intends to vigorously defend against them in court. On November 24, 2014, the Company and the other defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 4, 2015, the Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On February 18, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in full and dismissed the matter. On February 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The appeal was heard before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on December 6, 2016 and judgment is pending. Star Bulk Carriers Corp. is an international shipping company with extensive operational experience that owns and operates a fleet of dry bulk carrier vessels. On a fully delivered basis, the Company will have a fleet of 73 vessels consisting primarily of Newcastlemax, Capesize as well as Kamsarmax, Ultramax and Supramax vessels with a carrying capacity between 52,055 dwt and 209,537 dwt. The Company's vessels transport a broad range of major and minor bulk commodities, including ores, coal, grains and fertilizers, along worldwide shipping routes. STAR HOME: "Paradysz" Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOHN PARADYSZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STAR HOME HEALTH, INC. and CLEMENTINA IKWUEZUNMA, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv- 00655 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks that the Court to enter order: 1. granting motion to certify a collective action and to issue opt-in notices and consent forms to: "all persons who worked as Registered and Licensed Vocation Nurses for either Defendant from three years prior to the date the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to the present. 2. directing Defendants produce to Plaintiff's counsel in a usable electronic format no later than seven days from entry of the Court's Order, the names, last known personal and residential addresses, last known residential and cell phone numbers, personal and work e-mail addresses, last four digits of their Social Security Number, and dates of work of all persons who performed work for Defendants as Registered and Licensed Vocational Nurses in the three years prior to the date the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action to the present; 3. prohibiting Defendants from communicating directly or indirectly with any current or former employees who are putative collective action members about any matters which touch or concern the settlement of any outstanding wage claims or other matters related to this suit during the opt-in period, so as to preserve the putative collective action members' right to make free and voluntary choices about whether to join this case; and 4. allowing potential Plaintiffs be given 45 days to opt-into this lawsuit, and allowing Plaintiff's counsel be allowed to send notice and consent forms to opt-in Plaintiffs at least two times through the U.S. mail and two times via e- mail during the 45-day period. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KlqhKkMf The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Sullivan, Esq. OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP 712 Main Street, Suite 900 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 401 3555 Facsimile: (713) 401 3547 - and - Clayton D. Craighead, Esq. THE CRAIGHEAD LAW FIRM, PLLC 440 Louisiana, Suite 900 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (832) 798 1184 Facsimile: (832) 553 7261 E-mail: clayton.craighead@thetxlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Nwadi Nwogu, Esq. Meka Odunze, Esq. Odunze Nwogu Law Group, P.C. 6000 Savoy Drive, Suite 302 Houston, TX 77036 STATE COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JAMES WILLIAMS, KIM MORGAN, and MARK MOREHOUSE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00532-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiffs further asks the Court to stay the class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jOhMM0e9 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com U.S. SECURITY: "Barnett" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JENA BARNETT on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv- 00473-PLR-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to: 1. authorize the case to proceed as a collective action for overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), on behalf of: "non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in the Volkswagen Chattanooga Assembly Plant1 who were required to perform compensable work without being compensated for such work"; 2. issue an Order directing Defendant to immediately provide a list of names, last known addresses, and last known telephone numbers for all putative class members who worked for Defendant within the last three years; 3. issue an Order that notice be prominently posted at the facility where putative class members work, attached to current employees' next scheduled paycheck, and be mailed to the employees so that they can assert their claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation; and 4. order that the 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=N1oIqXnJ The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael L. Russell, Esq. Emily S. Emmons, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354 1144 E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com eemmons@gilbertfirm.com - and -- James M. Johnson, Esq. 620 Lindsey Street, Suite 210 Chattanooga, TN, 37403 Telephone: (423) 648 4093 E-mail: jj@jamesmjohnsonatty.com The Defendant is represented by: Russell W. Gray, Esq. J. Lane Crowder, Esq. BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BEROWITZ PC 1900 Republic Centre 633 Chestnut Street Chattanooga, TN 37450 Telephone: (423) 756 2010 UAW: Retired Employees Class Certified in Barnes Group Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled BARNES GROUP, INC., (including its Associated Spring Division), the Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00559-MPS (D. Conn.), the Hon. Michael P. Shea entered an order: 1. granting joint motion for class certification for purposes of the claim seeking a declaratory judgment that the UAW and its affiliated Locals have authority to agree to the changes in retiree medical benefits of the Barnes Retirees, including to agree to apply the changes in retiree medical coverage set forth in the 2016-2017 MOA: a. Barnes employees who retired between July 31, 1996 and April 6, 2016, the date the 2016-2017 MOA was ratified, and those who retire after that date but before the date set by the Court for closing of the Class, from either of the two Bristol Associated Spring plants and who were represented by UAW Local 712 at the date of their retirement"; b. Barnes employees who retired or will retire between August 1, 1993 and April 6, 2016, the date the 2016-2017 MOA was ratified, from the Saline Associated Spring plant, or its predecessor plant in Ann Arbor, Michigan, who were represented by Local 38 at the date of their retirement; c. Barnes employees who retired or will retire between June 15, 1992 and April 6, 2016, the date the 2016-2017 MOA was ratified, and those who retire after that date but before the date set by the Court for closing of the Class, from the Corry Associated Spring plant and who were represented by Local 629 at the date of their retirement; d. Barnes employees who retired or will retire between July 23, 1992 and the April 6, 2016, the date the 2016-2017 MOA was ratified, from the Dayton Associated Spring plant and who were represented by Local 1177 on the date of their retirement; and e. the spouses and dependents of any retiree described above including the surviving spouse of any such retiree who is deceased. 2. appointing William M. Bloss of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C., to serve as defendant class counsel; and 3. directing parties to submit for the Court's approval a proposed notice to the class members on or before May 3, 2017. The parties' proposal should address the appropriate date for closing of the class. This action pertains to changes to the medical benefits of retirees who retired after the 1996 class action settlement, and are therefore not covered by the settlement. Although it negotiated the changes with Barnes after determining that they were in the best interests of its members, the UAW determined that it could not apply the changes to these retirees in the absence of a court order, because its authority to do so is ambiguous. Barnes seeks a declaratory judgment that the UAW and its affiliated Locals have authority to agree to the changes in retiree medical benefits of the retirees who retired after the 1996 class action settlement, or alternatively, that Barnes may implement these changes on its own, without violating federal law. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CEahJiDZ UNITED RECOVERY: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JAN KOWALEWSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00531-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks that the Court enter an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and to grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UwmPOeLW The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com US BANK: Continues to Defend Suits, Including BlackRock Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Bank, National Association, continues to defend itself against various lawsuits, including the BlackRock cases, according to Hyundai ABS Funding, LLC's March 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Since 2014 various plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs, primarily investors, have filed claims against U.S. Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank"), in its capacity as trustee or successor trustee (as the case may be) under certain residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. The plaintiffs or plaintiff groups have filed substantially similar complaints against other RMBS trustees, including Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and Wells Fargo. The complaints against U.S. Bank allege the trustee caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers for these RMBS trusts and assert causes of action based upon the trustee's purported failure to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties concerning loan quality. The complaints also assert that the trustee failed to notify securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by breaches of servicing standards by mortgage loan servicers and that the trustee purportedly failed to abide by a heightened standard of care following alleged events of default. Currently, U.S. Bank is a defendant in multiple actions alleging individual or class action claims against the trustee with respect to multiple trusts with the most substantial case being: BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio et al v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 605204/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (class action alleging claims with respect to approximately 794 trusts) and its companion case BlackRock Core Bond Portfolio et al v. U.S Bank National Association, No. 14-cv-9401 (S.D.N.Y.). Some of the trusts implicated in the Blackrock cases, as well as other trusts, are involved in actions brought by separate groups of plaintiffs related to no more than 100 trusts per case. U.S. Bank cannot assure you as to the outcome of any of the litigation, or the possible impact of these litigations on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, U.S. Bank denies liability and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of losses to investors and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the plaintiffs' claims vigorously. VERIZON: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Aliksanyan" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned GARO ALIKSANYAN, the Plaintiff, v. VERIZON, N.Y. STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00394- MKB-SMG (E.D.N.Y.), the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to certify a class based on his legal inability to represent the class. The Court said, "On April 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class, consisting of "tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of similarly situated qualified Lifeline New York State applicants who are unable 'to seek redress from the courts'." Plaintiff, however, is proceeding pro se and therefore may not prosecute a class action as lead counsel and serve as the class representative. See Rodriquez v. Eastman Kodak Co., 88 F. App'x 470, 471 (2d Cir. 2004) "Although plaintiffs have a right to proceed pro se in civil actions, a pro se plaintiff may not seek to represent the interests of third-parties. Moreover, it is well established that a pro se class representative cannot adequately represent the interests of other class members." (citing Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir. 1998; Iannaccone, 142 F.3d at 558 (holding that "because pro se means to appear for one's self, a person may not appear on another person's behalf in the other's cause . . . [but] must be litigating an interest personal to him"); Phillips v. Tobin, 548 F.2d 408, 413 (2d Cir. 1976) ("Ability to protect the interests of the class depends in part on the quality of counsel, and we consider the competence of a layman representing himself to be clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others." (citation omitted)); Bank v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., No. 12-CV-5572, 2014 WL 4258932, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2014) ("Indeed it is well settled in this Circuit that 'a pro se plaintiff may not bring an action in which he will serve as both class representative and class counsel.'" (quoting Jaffe v. Captial One Bank, No. 09-CV-4106, 2010 WL 691639, at 10 (S.D.N.Y Mar. 1, 2010)))." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0aHsbOba VOLVO CARS: Class Certification Bid in "Neale" Suit Nixed --------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Jose L. Linares entered an order in the lawsuit entitled JOANNE NEALE, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:10-cv-04407-JLL- JAD (D.N.J.), administratively terminating, without prejudice, the motion to continue Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court further order: 1. accommodating the deposition of the plaintiffs' expert Patrick M. Passarella; 2. administratively terminating, without prejudice, the plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification; 3. directing the plaintiffs may once again renew their motion for class certification, a point after the completion of the deposition of the plaintiffs' expert Patrick M. Passarella, by: a. filing a new notice of motion; b. annexing a statement thereto that they intend to rely upon their previously-filed briefs and exhibits; and c. filing any supplemental briefs, if necessary; 4. directing that the new return date will be set by the Clerk of the Court upon the filing of the new notice of motion; and 5. granting parties leave to seek extensions of time to file opposition and reply briefs after the new notice of motion has been filed. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=C0WdY4oS WALGREEN CO: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled WASHTENAW COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WALGREEN CO., GREGORY D. WASSON, and WADE MIQUELON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-3187-SJC-MMR (N.D. Ill.), Lead Plaintiff Industriens Pensionsforsikring A/S moves the Court for an order: 1. certifying the action against Defendants as a class action on behalf of a class of: "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Walgreens' common stock between March 25, 2014 and August 5, 2014, inclusive (Class Period), and were damaged thereby (the Class); 2. appointing Industriens as the Class representative; and 3. approving Industriens' selection of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Kessler Topaz) as counsel for the Class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bUzSuaoO The Plaintiff is represented by: Eli R. Greenstein, Esq. Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. Rupa Cook Nath, Esq. Paul A. Breucop, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400 3000 Facsimile: (415) 400 3001 E-mail: egreenstein@ktmc.com jjoost@ktmc.com rcook@ktmc.com pbreucop@ktmc.com - and - Johnston de F. Whitman, Esq. Michelle M. Newcomer, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667 7706 Facsimile: (610) 667 7056 E-mail: jwhitman@ktmc.com mnewcomer@ktmc.com - and - James E. Barz, Esq. Frank A. Richter, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 674 4674 Facsimile: (312) 674 4676 E-mail: jbarz@rgrdlaw.com frichter@rgrdlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Eli R. Greenstein, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 WELLS FARGO: "Merino" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JUAN CARLOS MERINO and AGUSTIN MOREL, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-07840-ES- MAH (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, for entry of an Order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of: "persons who at any point in the last 3 years: (1) who work or have worked for Wells Fargo as hourly paid employees; (2) have been required to meet quarterly quotas for new accounts; (3) have worked more than forty (40) hours per week; and (4) have not been paid overtime wages"; 2. directing Wells Fargo to produce a computer-readable list identifying by name, last known mail address, last known email address, and telephone number all persons described above within 10 days of entry of the Order; 3. authorizing Plaintiffs to issue the Notice to the Anderson Declaration to putative class members via U.S. Mail and/or email and the Consent to Join form; and 4. authorizing Wells Fargo to post the Notice in a conspicuous common area in its retail banking branches. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ee6XTqVh The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH, LLC 363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2C Montclair, NJ 07042 Telephone: (973) 259 6990 Facsimile: (866) 848 1368 E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com - and - Russel S. Warren, Jr., Esq. 473 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632-1234 Telephone: (201) 503 0773 Facsimile: (201) 503 0776 E-mail: mail@RWarrenlaw.com - and - Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 217 Centre Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 847 8315 Facsimile: (646) 520 3236 E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com WELLS FARGO: Bids to Dismiss Suits by Investors Remain Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Motions to dismiss investors' lawsuits involving Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, remain pending, according to COMM 2013- CCRE12 Mortgage Trust's March 21, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The 175 West Jackson Mortgage Loan and the Miracle Mile Shops Mortgage Loan, which constituted approximately 12.5% and 12.1%, respectively, of the asset pool of the issuing entity as of its cut-off date, are each an asset of the issuing entity and are each part of a loan combination that includes (a) with respect to the 175 West Jackson Mortgage Loan which is an asset of the issuing entity and one other pari passu loan, which is not an asset of the issuing entity and (b) with respect to the Miracle Mile Shops Mortgage Loan which is an asset of the issuing entity and five other pari passu loans, which are not assets of the issuing entity. These loan combinations, including the 175 West Jackson Mortgage Loan and the Miracle Mile Shops Mortgage Loan, are being serviced and administered pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association is the master servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The responsibilities of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as primary servicer of each of these loan combinations with respect to the issuing entity, are subsumed within its responsibilities as master servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. On June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors filed a civil complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo Bank"), in its capacity as trustee under 276 residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts, which was later amended on July 18, 2014, to increase the number of trusts to 284 RMBS trusts. On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the state court action without prejudice. That same day, a group of institutional investors filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") against Wells Fargo Bank, alleging claims against the bank in its capacity as trustee for 274 RMBS trusts (the "Federal Court Complaint"). In December 2014, the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss their original state court action was granted. As with the prior state court action, the Federal Court Complaint is one of six similar complaints filed contemporaneously against RMBS trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and US Bank) by a group of institutional investor plaintiffs. The Federal Court Complaint against Wells Fargo Bank alleges that the trustee caused losses to investors and asserts causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged failure to: (i) notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, (ii) notify investors of alleged events of default, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. Relief sought includes money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. Other cases alleging similar causes of action have been filed against Wells Fargo Bank and other trustees in the District Court by RMBS investors in these and other transactions, and these cases against Wells Fargo Bank are proceeding before the same District Court judge. A similar complaint was also filed May 27, 2016 in New York state court by a different plaintiff investor. On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with the Federal Court Complaint in which the District Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over 261 trusts at issue in the Federal Court Complaint; the District Court also allowed plaintiffs to file amended complaints as to the remaining, non-dismissed trusts, if they so chose, and three amended complaints have been filed. On December 17, 2016, the investor plaintiffs in the 261 trusts dismissed from the Federal Court Complaint filed a new complaint in New York state court (the "State Court Complaint"). Motions to dismiss all of the actions are pending except for the recently filed State Court Complaint. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigations, or the possible impact of the litigations on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, Wells Fargo Bank denies liability and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of any losses to investors, and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the plaintiffs' claims vigorously. WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL: Inmates Seek to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- in the lawsuit styled NATHAN CAUDILL, and RODNEY SMITH, for themselves and others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, v. OFFICER HAYES, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00263-TLS- SLC (N.D. Ind.), Plaintiffs Nathan Caudill and Roger Smith ask the Court to certify a class of: "inmates incarcerated in the General Services Complex of the Westville Correctional Facility who on October 8, 2013 were repeatedly forced into their assigned dorms by the Defendants, in spite of the known imminent danger of attack and whom as a result were attacked by fellow inmates and then prison personnel responding to the attacks, thereby subjecting the inmates to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of their rights under the Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The inmates that were forced back onto their dorms then were subjected to a denial of adequate medical care for their injuries and unjustified disciplinary action for the attacks that they themselves suffered, in violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process". Nathan Caudill and Roger Smith were inmates at the Westville Correctional Facility in October 2013. On October 7, 2013, Caudill and Smith, along with approximately 50 to 58 other inmates, were attacked on their dorms by groups of black/ African American residents being housed on the same dorms. Caudill, Smith and their similarly situated white/Caucasian inmates reported to the prison's personnel (including the individually named defendants) that they were in fear for their lives; many of the black/ African American inmates that were left on the dorms also reported fear for their own safety if the Plaintiffs and their similarly situated, affiliated inmates were returned to their assigned dorms. Both the Plaintiffs and their group of inmates, and the opposing African-American groups requested that the opposing groups be permitted to be housed separate from one another until a peaceful resolution could be reached between the members of the opposing groups. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MyODR1tR The Plaintiff is represented by: Ilene M. Smith, 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 WHIRLPOOL CORP: May 15 Hearing on Bid to Certify 7 Classes ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CHARLENE DZIELAK, SHELLEY BAKER, FRANCIS ANGELONE, BRIAN MAXWELL, JEFFERY REID, KARI PARSONS, CHARLES BEYER, JONATHAN COHEN, JENNIFER SCHRAMM, and ASPASIA CHRISTY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., FRY'S ELECTRONICS, INC., and APPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-KM-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs will move before the Hon. Kevin McNulty, United States District Court Judge, at the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 15, 2017, for an Order to: 1. certify New Jersey Class, California Class, Florida Class, Texas Class, Ohio Class, Virginia Class, and Indiana Class; 2. appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives; and 3. appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C, and Vozzolo LLC as Class Counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YrnYq0uT The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994 1700 - and - Antonio Vozzolo, Esq. VOZZOLO LLC 345 Route 17 South Upper Saddle River, NJ 07548 Telephone: (201) 630 8820 ********* 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 * * *