/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170703.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 3, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 129 Headlines AARON'S INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action AIR CHECK: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Certify "Foday" Class ALPINE ACCESS: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Morse" Suit AMMARI OF LOUISIANA: Farrow Moves for Conditional Certification AMRIK ORIENTAL: Violates Wage Payment Laws, "Solares" Suit Claims AUSTRALIA: Some Manus Island Detainees May Reject Settlement AVINGER INC: Securities Class Action Pending in California B. FRANK JOY: Bid to Dismiss "Alvarez-Soto" Partly Granted BEALL'S OUTLET: "Raymondo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA BILBOA REST: "Riveras" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA BIMBO FOODS: Misclassifies Distributors, Puello et al. Claim BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sept. 22 Case Management Conference BOOZ ALLEN: Faces Securities Class Action in Virginia BRAD PISTOTNIK: Kansas App. Affirms Judgment in "Consolver" BRIGHTCURRENT INC: Pinon Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code CABELA'S INC: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Merger with Bass Pro Group CALPERS: Policyholders Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action CAMDEN, NJ: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Detention Program CHICAGO BRIDGE: Faces "Giantonio" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Faces "Monroe" Suit in E.D. Michigan CELLULAR CITY: "Morales" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law CENTURYLINK: Faces Three Class Actions Over Alleged Billing Fraud CENTURYLINK INC: Faces Class Action Over Sales Incentive Scheme CHARLES SCHWAB: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action CHICAGO: Faces "Campbell" Suit in Northern District of Illinois CHICAGO BRIDGE: Faces "Giantonio" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Gordon" Suit Over Data Security Breach COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: "Blanco" Suit Sues over Consumer Report COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: "Canale" Suit Stayed Pending FTC Investigation CONAGRA: Seeks Reversal of GMO Cooking Oil Class Action DEJA VU SERVICES: Settlement in Exotic Dancers' Suit Has Final OK DICOM MIDWEST: Failed to Pay Earned Wages, "Grady" Suit Says DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Affirms Rulings in "Child Find" Suit DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: WMATA Wins Summary Judgment in "Dawson" DIVINE QUALITY: Faces "Capote" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation DNC SERVICES: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Action DICK SMITH: Faces Shareholder Class Action Following Collapse DISCOVERY METALS: Piper Alderman Files Shareholder Class Action DOM'S LAWNMAKER: Gonzalez Sues over Wage and Hour Violations EGUMBALL INC: Violates TCPA, Abante Rooter Class Suit Alleges EJR LOGISTICS: "LICEA" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ELGIN MENTAL: Faces "Nadzhafaliyev" Suit in N.D. Illinois EVANS CONSTRUCTION: "Alexander" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA FCA US: Court Lieff Cabraser Lead Atty in Products Liability Suit FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: 8th Cir. Reverses Antitrust Suit Dismissal FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Wins Summary Judgment in "Ellis" FIELDTURF USA: Medford Sues over Artificial Turf Fields FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Aug. 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline FMS FINANCIAL: Faces "Hopson" Suit in District of New Jersey FORD MOTOR: Settles Faulty Transmission Class Action FTS USA: 6th Cir. Reverses Calculation of Damages in "Moore" GC SERVICES: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Smith" GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Vazquez" Suit over Corvette Z06 Defects GEORGIA: Faces "Dingler" Suit in Northern District of Georgia GREYHOUND LINES: Faces National Federation Suit in N.D. Cal. J CHOO USA: Wagner Appeals Ruling in "Wood" Suit to 11th Circuit JUNO: Drivers File Class Action Over False Ride-Hail App Claims K-MAC ENTERPRISES: Faces "Ash" Suit Under FLSA, Ark. Labor Law KALEO PHARMA: Law Firm Seeks Individuals for EVZIO Class Action KALOBIOS PHARMA: Ex-CEO Wins Dismissal of Securities Suit KING.COM: Court Allows Candy Crush Class Action to Proceed KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Court Denies Change of Venue in "Martinez" KONA GRILL: Cedeno Moves to Certify Class of Sous Chefs, Others KUEHNE NAGEL: "Scott" Suit Moved to C.D. California LOS ANGELES, CA: 9th Cir. Reverses 30-Day Impound Ruling MACQUARIE GROUP: Sued Over Cleveland Mining Stock Price Inflation MASSAPEQUA DINER: Accused by "Lamar" Class Suit of Violating FLSA MAZOR ROBOTICS: Faces "Bergeron" Suit Over ISA Investigation MEARS TRANSPORTATION: Luxury Chauffeurs Join Wage Class Action MIDLAND FUNDING: Status Hearing in "Janetos" Suit Set for Aug. 16 MUTUAL SECURITIES: Milliner Seeks Certification of Clients Class NA PIZZA: Faces "Gibbons" Suit Alleging Inadequate Compensation NEXVET BIOPHARMA: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Action NEW YORK, USA: Sued by Turano on Behalf of Medicaid Recipients NICOLET RESTAURANT: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Class Action PACIFIC COAST: "Serrano" Suit Moved to C.D. California PATCO ELECTRICAL: Class of Apprentice Certified in "Roberts" Suit PFIZER: Motion to Remand Lipitor Class Action to State Court OK'd PRECOR INC: Class Action Over Treadmill Sensors Can Proceed PREMIER DERMATOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Texts PUTNAM INVESTMENT: Court Dismisses Remaining Claims in ERISA Suit REO CONTRACTORS: Faces "Caldwell" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation RHEEM MANUFACTURING: NJ Court Narrows "Argabright" Suit SEARS BRAND: Faces TCPA Class Action in California SEVEN NINETY CO: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Aguirre Claims SLATER AND GORDON: Vows to Fight Babscay Securities Class Action SPOTLESS GRPOUP: IMF Bentham to Stop Funding Class Action SOLID WOOD: "Boone" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA STERLING JEWELERS: "Masten" Suit Moved to C.D. California SUREID INC: Faces "Flaig" Lawsuit Alleging WARN Act Violation SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action TEMPLE ISRAEL: "Orellana" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA TIM HORTONS: Franchisees Commence $500MM Class Action TURN KEY: "Ortiz" Suit Sues over Wage and Hour Violation TURNER CONTRACTING: "Outley" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Under FLSA UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Disputes Class Action Over Pricing Model VIVINT SOLAR: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 2 Claims in "Stadnick" VWR CORPORATION: Lawrence Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Avantor WORLDVENTURES HOLDINGS: "Yiru" Suit Moved to C.D. California ZF CHASSIS: Faces "Smith" Suit in Northern Dist. of Illinois * Justice Dept. Leans Towards Employers on Class Action Waiver * Plaintiffs' Firms Earn Nearly $1BB from 2016 Securities Cases * Trump Administration Protects Arbitration Clauses ********* AARON'S INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") on June 19 disclosed that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge against Aaron's, Inc., ("Aaron's" or the "Company") (NYSE: AAN) and certain of its senior executives. The action, which is captioned Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Aaron's, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-02270-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Aaron's common stock during the time period of February 6, 2015 to October 29, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Aaron's misled investors with regard to its subsidiary, Progressive Finance Holdings, LLC ("Progressive"). The Complaint also alleges that the Company concealed from investors that the Company was experiencing software issues that impacted Progressive's underwriting algorithm. In truth, Progressive had lost critical data in February 2015, which impacted the Company's ability to make loans and collect payments. If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from June 19, 2017. Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is August 18, 2017. Any member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class. If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at avi@blbglaw.com. Information about BLB&G can be found online at www.blbglaw.com. [GN] AIR CHECK: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Certify "Foday" Class --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned ALEX FODAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AIR CHECK, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15 C 10205 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiffs allegedly worked for Defendant Air Check, Inc. (ACI) as airport workers at O'Hare International Airport. Plaintiffs contend that they were required to perform work after punching-in before their scheduled shifts. As a result, Plaintiffs were allegedly not paid for every second of actual work and were potentially deprived of some overtime owed to them. Plaintiffs include in their complaint claims alleging the failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section (Count I), claims alleging violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), 820 ILCS 105/1 (Counts II), and claims alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), 820 ILCS 115/1 (Count III). Plaintiffs move to certify a class for their IMWL and IWPCA claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Rule 23). Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of "All individuals who were or are currently employed by the Defendants, their subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors and/or successors, as airport workers or other similarly titled positions at any time during the relevant statute of limitations whose actual punch-in and punch-out times were rounded to their detriment." In a Memorandum Opinion dated June 21, 2017 available at https://is.gd/e6N3ox from Leagle.com, the Court found that Plaintiffs have failed to show that any of the factors in Rule 23(a) are met and Plaintiffs have failed to show that any alternative in Rule 23(b) is met. Fred Berrios, et al. are represented by Glen Joseph Dunn, Jr., Esq. -- gdunn@gjdlaw.com -- and -- Angel Petrov Bakov, Esq. -- abakov@gjdlaw.com -- GLEN DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD -- Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq. -- jeff@jgbrownlaw.com -- JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C. Air Check, Inc., et al. are represented by David J. Tecson, Esq. - - dtecson@chuhak.com -- Francisco E. Connell, Esq. -- fconnell@chuhak.com -- and -- Ryan A. Haas, Esq. -- rhaas@chuhak.com -- CHUHAK & TECSON, P.C. ALPINE ACCESS: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Morse" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter entered a memorandum- decision and order in the lawsuit styled CAROL MORSE, BECKY NELLOS, and SANDY MOROWITZ, o/b/o themselves, and others similarly situated v. ALPINE ACCESS, INC., and SYKES ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-00235-BKS-ATB (N.D.N.Y.): * denying, without prejudice, the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act; and * ordering that the Defendants' cross-motion to dismiss or stay Plaintiffs' FLSA claims may be terminated as moot. The Plaintiffs have sought conditional certification of a collective action under the FLSA of a class consisting of approximately 30,000 current and former hourly "at-home customer service representatives" employed by the Defendants in 40 states. The Defendants responded with a cross-motion to dismiss or stay plaintiffs' FLSA claims because of the pendency of a similar, earlier-filed FLSA action against the same defendants in the District of Colorado. The Court believes that a relatively brief period of limited discovery, focused on certification issues, will provide the Defendants with a reasonable opportunity to test the allegations of the Plaintiffs. Moreover, in light of the fact that at least 14 additional opt-in plaintiffs have consented to join the action, the Plaintiffs may be able to marshal additional and sufficient evidence supporting conditional certification, Judge Baxter said. The Court stated that it will promptly schedule a status conference with the parties to address the duration and scope of the period of limited discovery. A copy of the Memorandum-Decision and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WGpIG7bz The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, L.L.C. 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew J. Voss, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 80 S 8th St., Suite 1300 Minneapolis, MN 55402-2136 Telephone: (612) 630-1000 Facsimile: (612) 630-9626 E-mail: avoss@littler.com AMMARI OF LOUISIANA: Farrow Moves for Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Rieneke R. Farrow, Matthew Hunter, Judah Nero, Mia Johnson1, Shameka Brown, Wilshon Givens, Dishea Brown, Tevin Butler and Alphonse Honore move the Court for conditional certification of the matter entitled RIENEKE E. FARROW, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated v. AMMARI OF LOUISIANA, LTD. d/b/a CREOLE CUISINE RESTAURANTCONCEPTS, Case No. 2:15-cv-07148-ILRL-DEK (E.D. La.), as a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs also seek approval of a written notice to putative collective action members and to order the Defendants to post copies of the Notice of Lawsuit in prominent locations within the Defendants' restaurants. The Plaintiffs further seek an order prohibiting retaliation against the Named Plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7d3JufEL The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jessica M. Vasquez, Esq. VASQUEZ LAW OFFICE 400 Poydras Street, Suite 900 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 571-9582 Facsimile: (504) 684-1449 E-mail: jvasquez@vasquezlawoffice.com AMRIK ORIENTAL: Violates Wage Payment Laws, "Solares" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO SOLARES and NELSON MONTERROSO, and all similarly situated present and former employees of the defendants herein, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25 and 29 U.S.C section 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. AMRIK ORIENTAL RUGS, INC., d/b/a Amrik Rug Gallery and/or Rug & Decor and/or Renaissance Rug Gallery, AMRIK HENDIAZAD (a/k/a Amrik Angdtazad), HOUSHANG ABBASSI, ABC Company No. 1-2 And JOHN/JANE DOES No. 1-10, jointly, severally, and individually, the Defendants, Case No. MERL-L-1295-17 (N.J. Super. Ct., June 12, 2017), seeks temporarily restraining and permanently enjoining Defendants from violating the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The Plaintiffs began working at the Store in about March 2016. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiffs performed general services at and to the benefit of the Store, such as moving and storing rugs, cleaning, responding to customers, and the like. In the performance of their Store duties, Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours/week. The Defendants failed and willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiffs according to the overtime requirements of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. The Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiffs at the legally required minimum wage. Amrik Oriental Rugs is doing business in home furnishing industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roger Martindell, Esq. 245 Nassau Street Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 921 3355 Facsimile: (609) 921 9345 E-mail: Martindell.law@gmail.com AUSTRALIA: Some Manus Island Detainees May Reject Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Sky News reports that some Manus Island detainees believe the compensation they will receive under a $70 million settlement with the Australian government is too low and may reject it. Sudanese asylum seeker Abdul Aziz Muhamat says tensions in the immigration detention centre are high amid uncertainty about how much compensation each detainee will receive and where they will end up when it closes. Some are considering rejecting the settlement on the basis that it amounts to an average of $36,000, although that is not how individual damages will be determined. "According to them they are saying it's not going to be enough," Mr Muhamat told AAP. "People are saying 'we've actually been in this place for four years and we have got physical damage and mental damage and this small amount of money won't do anything to help us'." Speaking from Port Moresby where he is receiving medical treatment, Mr Muhamat said some Manus detainees will be resettled under Australia's deal with the United States but many will be left behind. He said those hoping to end up in the US may accept the settlement once they know their individual compensation amounts, believing it will be harder to sue the Australian government in any new legal action once in America. "There's other people saying 'no we're not going to sign the settlement because the amount is so small'," Mr Muhamat said. The Australian government and operators of the Manus Island Regional Processing Centre settled the class action by 1905 current and former detainees for $70 million, most of which will be for false imprisonment and tied to the length of time spent in detention. Law firm Slater and Gordon has received hundreds of registrations and enquiries from group members since the June 21 settlement announcement. Fewer than six per cent have responded negatively to the settlement or expressed a desire to not be part of the class action, Slater and Gordon principal lawyer Andrew Baker told AAP. "Importantly, this settlement was designed to not be forced upon any group member who does not wish to participate," he said in a statement. "Group members have the right to object to the proposed settlement, and are not required to participate in it, and they can also ask the court for more time to opt out of the class action, which would preserve their legal rights if that application is granted." Mr Muhamat said the firm has provided the group members with information about how individual settlements will be determined and told them they do not have to decide immediately. Mr Muhamat, who is undecided about accepting the compensation, hoped to get enough to help him get proper medical treatment and build his future. "There is nothing on the planet that they can make you forget what you have seen and what you have experienced during the last four years." Despite the federal government saying none of the 839 men on Manus will be settled in Australia, Mr Muhamat does not believe they will be abandoned when the centre closes in October. [GN] AVINGER INC: Securities Class Action Pending in California ---------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in Avinger, Inc. (NASDAQ: AVGR) to the securities class action pending in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. If you purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of AVGR pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or about January 30, 2015 and suffered losses contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. For more information visit https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/AVGR or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing AVGR@hbsslaw.com. On or about January 30, 2015, Defendants priced the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") for the issuance of 5 million shares at $13.00 per share. The lawsuit alleges that the IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus materially and falsely and/or failed to disclose that (1) Avinger lacked adequate sales and marketing personnel to increase sales of its lumivascular platform products and to commercialize Pantheris, (2) Avinger already experienced problems with the robustness of its lumivascular platform devices (including Pantheris), (3) physicians and hospitals were requiring more extensive and comprehensive training concerning the Company's products as compared to competing products, (4) Avinger would not be able to rapidly ramp sales of its lumivascular platform, and (5) as a result, Avinger experienced lower than expected sales and revenues. On July 12, 2016, during an earnings conference call management attributed disappointing financial results to Avinger's continued problems with the robustness and safety profile of its Pantheris device. This news drove the price of Avinger shares down $4.54, or nearly 40%, to close at $6.89 on July 13, 2016. "Among other things, we're focused on is whether before the IPO Avinger terminated the personnel necessary to the Company's success without sufficiently informing investors," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Avinger should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new SEC whistleblower program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email AVGR@hbsslaw.com. [GN] About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a national investor- rights law firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington with offices in 10 cities. The Firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. B. FRANK JOY: Bid to Dismiss "Alvarez-Soto" Partly Granted ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MANUEL ALVAREZ-SOTO, DARRYL REID and CHARLES THOMAS, On Behalf a/Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. B. FRANK JOY, LLC, T. KENNETH JOY and KEVIN JOY, Defendants, Civil Action No. TDC-15-1120 (D. Md.), Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and granted the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs, former and current employees of Defendant B. Frank Joy ("BFJ"), have filed this civil lawsuit on behalf of a class of current and former BFJ employees who have worked as construction workers, laborers, equipment operators, forepersons, flaggers, and truck drivers. They allege that the Defendants have violated their rights under federal and state law by failing to pay both straight time and overtime wages, refusing to allow them and other employees to take sick leave, and discriminating against Plaintiffs and other African American and Latino employees. The Second Amended Complaint asserts violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"); the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"); the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act ("DCMWA"); the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law ("DCWPCL"); the District of Columbia Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act, as amended (the "D.C. Sick Leave Act"); and District of Columbia and Maryland common law. BFJ and the Individual Defendants, T. Kenneth Joy and Kevin Joy, have filed separate Motions to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The general allegation that BFJ discharged or demoted employees who complained does not provide enough factual context to nudge their claim from conceivable to plausible. Accordingly, BFJ's Motion is granted as to the FLSA retaliation claims of Alvarez-Soto and Reid. To the extent that Counts V and VI assert claims under the DCWPCL and MWPCL under a theory of unlawful deductions, the Plaintiffs have not offered sufficient facts to support those claims. The Second Amended Complaint does not allege any facts that describe the deductions in question or support the conclusion that they were unlawful. Accordingly, to the extent that the Plaintiffs seek to assert unlawful deduction claims under the DCWPCL and MWPCL in Counts V and VI, those claims are dismissed. The unpaid wages claims alleged in Counts V and VI under those statutes, which BFJ does not challenge, remain intact. BFJ asserts that the Second Amended Complaint does not state a plausible claim for relief under the D.C. Sick Leave Act because it does not allege that the Plaintiffs were eligible for sick leave or that they complied with the notice requirements. BFJ cites no authority for the proposition that the Plaintiffs are required to plead explicitly that they complied with the notice requirements, nor is the Court aware of any. Accordingly, BFJ's Motion is denied as to Count VII. The Plaintiffs also allege that BFJ was unjustly enriched because it increased the profitability of its government contracts tied to prevailing market wages by paying workers less than the contracted-amount for wages and keeping the difference for the company. Although they do not specifically reference the Davis- Bacon Act ("DBA"), the Plaintiffs' reference to government contracts tied to prevailing market wages is undoubtedly an indirect reference to the DBA that illustrates that the unjust enrichment claim is based on the failure to pay wage rates in accordance with that statute. Accordingly, to the extent the Plaintiffs' common law unjust enrichment claims arise from the failure to pay DBA prevailing wage rates, they are also preempted by the DBA. BFJ's Motion is therefore granted as to the state common law claims. In addition, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs provide sufficient facts relating to two claims under Section 1981. Accordingly, the Court denied BFJ's Motion to Dismiss the Section 1981 claim to the extent to allege a failure to hire or promote Alvarez-Soto to the driver position and alleges discriminatory discipline against Thomas. The remaining allegations of race discrimination under Section 1981 are dismissed. Because the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the Individual Defendants were "employers" under the broader FLSA definition, the Court concluded that the allegations are likewise insufficient to state a claim that the Individual Defendants were "employers" who violated the MWPCL. Accordingly, the Court granted the Motion as to the MWPCL claim against the Individual Defendants. The Court noted that the D.C. Sick Leave Act's recognition that the "legal entity" employer may act "through an agent or any other person" illustrates that such persons, even in supervisory or managerial roles, are not personally subject to liability as an "employer." Thus, the Plaintiffs cannot state a claim against the Individual Defendants under the D.C. Sick Leave Act. The Individual Defendants' Motion is granted as to that claim. Because the state common law claims are preempted by federal law, they are dismissed as to both BFJ and the Individual Defendants. The allegation that the Individual Defendants knew or should have known of ongoing discrimination falls short of that standard. Individuals within a company cannot be liable under Section 1981 unless they intentionally cause an employer to infringe the rights secured by section 1981. The Individual Defendants' Motion is granted as to the Section 1981 discrimination claim. Finally, the claims against all the Defendants under state common law, and the claims against the Individual Defendants under the D.C. Sick Leave Act, cannot be cured through amendment and are dismissed with prejudice. Because leave to amend has been granted, the Court denied the request to strike class claims as premature. The Plaintiffs may file a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint within 14 days. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 memorandum opinion is available at https://is.gd/ayJH2E from Leagle.com. Manuel Alvarez-Soto, Plaintiff, represented by Christine A. Dixon -- info@cdixongloballaw.com -- C Dixon Global Law PLLC. Manuel Alvarez-Soto, Plaintiff, represented by Larry A. Strauss, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson, and Gary, PLLC, pro hac vice & Willie E. Gary, Gary Williams Parenti and Watson PLLC, pro hac vice. Charles Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Christine A. Dixon, C Dixon Global Law PLLC, Larry A. Strauss, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson, and Gary, PLLC, pro hac vice & Willie E. Gary, Gary Williams Parenti and Watson PLLC, pro hac vice. Darryl Reid, Plaintiff, represented by Christine A. Dixon, C Dixon Global Law PLLC, Larry A. Strauss, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson, and Gary, PLLC, pro hac vice & Willie E. Gary, Gary Williams Parenti and Watson PLLC, pro hac vice. B. Frank Joy, LLC, Defendant, represented by Maurice Baskin -- mbaskin@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Steven E. Kaplan - - skaplan@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & William F. Allen - - ballen@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.. T. Kenneth Joy, Defendant, represented by Maurice Baskin, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Steven E. Kaplan, Littler Mendelson PC. Kevin Joy, Defendant, represented by Maurice Baskin, Littler Mendelson, P.C. BEALL'S OUTLET: "Raymondo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- MARYBETH RAYMONDO, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BEALL's OUTLET STORES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01406-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla., June 12, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Ms. Raymondo began working for Defendant as a Store Manager in October 2014, and she worked in this capacity until March 29, 2017. Ms. Raymondo and similarly situated employees worked hours un excess of 40 hours within a work week for Defendant, and they were entitled to compensated for these overtime hours at a rate equal to one and one-half times their individual regular hourly rates. However, Defendant allegedly failed to pay them for all overtime hours that they worked, in violation of the FLSA. The Defendant operates a retail store in Winter Haven, in Polk County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 386 0995 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com rcooke@wfclaw.com BILBOA REST: "Riveras" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR FERNANDO RIVERAS, and BENJAMIN DOMINGUEZ, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BILBOA REST. CORP. d/b/a/ FRANCISCO'S CENTRO VASCO, FRANCISCO QUINTANS, JAVIER QUINTANS, FRANKLIN JIMINEZ, and ALBERTO PEREZ, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04430 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, and liquidated damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated current and former Restaurant Employees who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, to remedy violations of the wage and hour provisions of the FLSA by Defendants that have deprived Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees of their lawfully earned wages. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as servers, servers assistants, back waiters, bussers, runners, bartenders, bar backs and other tipped employees. The Defendants own and operate a seafood restaurant in the Chelsea section of Manhattan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Cafaro, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Telephone (212) 583 7400 BIMBO FOODS: Misclassifies Distributors, Puello et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------------ CARLOS M. PUELLO, JOHANNY PUELLO, and KIM PEEK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BIMBO FOODS BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-04481-KMK (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2017), seeks to recover damages including reimbursement of all charges, deductions, and expenses, liquidated damages and interest, and statutory damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. According to the complaint, BFBD uses hundreds of individuals within New York and New Jersey to distribute baked goods. The Distributors pick up the baked goods from one of BFBD's depots and deliver the baked goods to various stores on their routes. Many of the distributors, including Plaintiffs, are classified as "independent operators," and paid on IRS Form 1099 as independent contractors. As a result of being paid as independent contractors, the Distributors do not receive any of the benefits of employment such as fringe benefits -- health insurance and paid time off -- expense reimbursement -- indeed, the Distributors are required to buy or use their own truck, among other things, to deliver Defendant's products -- company-provided equipment, and employee protections under federal and state laws. As a result, BDFD has saved millions of dollars. The Complaint contends the Distributors are essentially forced into a pay-to-work scenario, where they must spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to work for Defendant. The Distributors must buy their own trucks, pay their own insurance, purchase a $3,000 handheld computer from BFBD for each route, and pay to purchase a delivery route from Defendant. Defendant's business consists of manufacturing, distributing, and selling baked goods under an array of well-known brands including but not limited to Thomas', Sara Lee, Arnold, Entenmann's, Bimbo, Freihofer's, and Boboli.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark C. Gardy, Esq. Orin Kurtz, Esq. Jacob E. Lewin, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP Tower 56 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 905 0509 Facsimile: (212) 905 0508 E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com okurtz@gardylaw.com BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sept. 22 Case Management Conference --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MONITA SHARMA and ERIC ANDERSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:13-cv-02274-MMC (KAW) (N.D. Cal.) Senior District Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, granted the parties' stipulation and order to continue the June 30, 2017 case management conference and stay pending settlement to Sept. 22, 2017. The case and all case management and related deadlines are continued to be stayed pending final approval of the Settlement to this action and the Catalano Action and the settlement approval process before Judge Forres. The parties will jointly submit a case management statement no later than Sept. 22, 2017. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/p3duJm from Leagle.com. Monita Sharma, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart C. Talley -- stuart@kctlegal.com -- Kershaw Cook & Talley PC. Monita Sharma, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Morris Rose, Law Office of Robert Starr, Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Edward A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP, Ian James Barlow, Kershaw, Cook & Talley PC, Stephen Massong Harris -- stephen@smh-legal.com -- Law Offices of Stephen M. Harris, P.C. & William A. Kershaw -- bill@kctlegal.com -- Kershaw Cook & Talley PC. Eric Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart C. Talley, Kershaw Cook & Talley PC, Adam Morris Rose, Law Office of Robert Starr, Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Edward A. Wallace, Wexler Wallace LLP, Ian James Barlow, Kershaw, Cook & Talley PC, Stephen Massong Harris, Law Offices of Stephen M. Harris, P.C. & William A. Kershaw, Kershaw Cook & Talley PC. BMW of North America LLC, Defendant, represented by Troy Masami Yoshino -- troy.yoshino@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Aengus Hartley Carr -- aengus.carr@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Eric J. Knapp -- eric.knapp@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs LLP & Jenny Grantz -- jenny.grantz@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP. BOOZ ALLEN: Faces Securities Class Action in Virginia ----------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on June 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation ("Booz Allen" or the "Company") (NYSE:BAH) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Booz Allen's securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Booz Allen securities between May 19, 2016 and June 15, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until August 18, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Booz Allen is an American management consulting firm. The Company purports to provide management and technology consulting, engineering, analytics, digital, mission operations, and cyber solutions to governments, corporations, and not-for-profit organizations in the United States and internationally. At all relevant times, Booz Allen has derived substantially all of its revenues from services provided to the U.S. government. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Booz Allen engaged in improper accounting practices in its contracts with the U.S. government; (ii) consequently, the Company's revenues derived from services provided to the U.S. government were inflated and unsustainable; (iii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would subject the Company to heightened regulatory scrutiny, potential criminal sanctions, and jeopardize its business relationship with the U.S. government; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Booz Allen's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 15, 2017, post-market, Booz Allen disclosed that on June 7, 2017, the Company's subsidiary Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. "was informed that the U.S. Department of Justice is conducting a civil and criminal investigation relating to certain elements of [its] cost accounting and indirect cost charging practices with the U.S. government." On this news, Booz Allen's share price fell $7.43, or 18.89%, to close at $31.90 on June 16, 2017. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] BRAD PISTOTNIK: Kansas App. Affirms Judgment in "Consolver" ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MAHNAZ CONSOLVER, Appellant, v. BRAD PISTOTNIK, Appellee, No. 115,197 (Ks. App.), the Court of Appeals of Kansas affirmed the district court's decision granting Pistotnik's motion for judgment on the pleadings and entering judgment against Consolver. Consolver sued Pistotnik in Sedgwick County District Court for violating the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA), K.S.A. 50-623 et seq., and for breaching a contract she entered with his law firm to represent her. The district court entered judgment for Pistotnik, finding the statute of limitations had run on the KCPA claims and that he personally was not a party to the contract and, therefore, could not be liable for the alleged breach. On Consolver's appeal, the Court finds the district court's ultimate conclusions to be correct and affirm the judgment in Pistotnik's favor. In April 2011, Consolver hired Pistotnik's law firm to represent her in recovering for injuries she received in a motor vehicle collision earlier that year. She fired the firm and Pistotnik at the end of June 2012 in the midst of that litigation and settled her personal injury case with the help of another lawyer about a year later. Consolver and Pistotnik had been mired in a fee dispute arising out of their attorney-client relationship and that suit. In the meantime, Consolver filed this suit as a class action against Pistotnik and his law firm on July 9, 2015. She filed an amended petition three weeks later and in October dismissed the law firm as a party, leaving Pistotnik personally as the sole Defendant. No class has ever been certified. In November, Pistotnik filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, interposing a statute of limitations defense to the KCPA claims and lack of personal liability on the contract. Consolver brought no other claims in her action. She duly responded to Pistotnik's motion. In December, the district court issued a written decision granting Pistotnik's motion and entering judgment against Consolver. Consolver has appealed. Kansas law recognizes that a corporate agent typically will not be held personally liable for breach of a contract he or she has signed on behalf of the corporation. Consolver's petition did not allege factual circumstances that would support a deviation from the general rule. In other words, she did not claim some basis for looking behind the corporate form to hold Pistotnik personally liable for violating the agreement. Accordingly, the district court properly applied the usual law of corporate liability. Pistotnik, therefore, had no personal liability for any alleged breach of the contract between Consolver and the law firm. And Consolver had voluntarily dismissed the law firm as a defendant before the motion was filed. The Court therefore held that the district court ruled correctly in dismissing the breach of contract claim, and accordingly affirmed that ruling. Consolver's KCPA claims are governed by the 3-year statute of limitations in K.S.A. 60-512(2). Claims of the sort Consolver asserts under the KCPA become actionable -- triggering the limitations period -- when the consumer suffers legal harm or, in the words of the Act, is "aggrieved." With those principles in mind, the Court reviews the district court's ruling on Consolver's KCPA claims. It held that the district court properly granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to those claims Consolver based on the law firm's purportedly deceptive advertising. For purposes of the KCPA, Consolver became aggrieved as a result when she selected Pistotnik's law firm out of the universe of available law firms to represent her. That's true even though she paid no fees to the law firm at that time. Rather, taking the allegations as true, Consolver was gulled out of a fair opportunity to select a different lawyer -- a harm the KCPA presumably would recognize as actionable, thereby allowing the consumer to recover a statutory civil penalty and attorney fees at a minimum. As the Court said, the district court properly considered the employment contract in ruling on the motion. The contract was signed on April 1, 2011. Consolver did not file this action until July 9, 2015. The action, therefore, was commenced beyond the 3- year statute of limitations as to those claims, and the district court properly dismissed them. For these reasons, the Court held that the district court ultimately ruled correctly in entering judgment against Consolver and in favor of Pistotnik on her claims for breach of the employment contract and for violation of the KCPA. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 memorandum opinion is available at https://is.gd/Xaautk from Leagle.com. Stephen L. Brave, of Brave Law Firm, LLC, of Wichita, for appellant. N. Russell Hazlewood -- russ@graybillhazlewood.com -- and Nathan R. Elliott -- nathan@graybillhazlewood.com -- of Graybill & Hazlewood, LLC, of Wichita, for appellee. BRIGHTCURRENT INC: Pinon Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSIE PINON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), the Plaintiff, v. BRIGHTCURRENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG17863796 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, penalties, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to receive at least minimum wages for compensation and that, in violation of the California Labor Code, they were not receiving at least minimum wages for work done off-the-clock. BrightCurrent helps people to shift to solar energy with an education approach that focuses on in-store kiosks, canvassing, and event management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Bainer, Esq. THE BAINER LAW FIRM 1901 Harrison St., Suite 1100 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 922 1802 Facsimile: (510) 844 s7701 E-mail: mbainer@bainerfawfirm.com CABELA'S INC: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Merger with Bass Pro Group ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER A. BROWN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CABELA'S INCORPORATED, JAMES W. CABELA, THOMAS L. MILLNER, THEODORE M. ARMSTRONG, JOHN H. EDMONDSON, DENNIS HIGHBY, MICHAEL R. MCCARTHY, DONNA M. MILROD, BETH M. PRITCHARD, JAMES F. WRIGHT, and PETER S. SWINBURN, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00711-UNA (D. Del., June 9, 2017), accuses the Board of authorizing the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement in connection with the proposed merger between Cabela's, Bass Pro Group, LLC, and Prairie Merger Sub, Inc. In particular, the Proxy allegedly contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) Cabela's financial projections; and (ii) the valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Guggenheim Securities, LLC, in support of its fairness opinion. Pursuant to the transaction, the Company's stockholders stand to receive $61.50 in cash for each share of Cabela's common stock they own. CABELA'S INC. is a leading specialty retailer and the world's largest direct marketer of hunting, fishing, camping and related outdoor merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone: (302) 482-3182 Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212 971 1341 Fax: (212) 202-7880 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com CALPERS: Policyholders Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- A Los Angeles Superior Court judge sided with more than 130,000 class members, all CalPERS Long Term Care policyholders, in their class action against CalPERS for unjust premium increases, permitting their claims to proceed to trial. The class action stems from CalPERS' decision in 2013 to raise premiums for its Long-Term Care insurance on more than 130,000 policyholders across California. Many of those policyholders have been in the CalPERS program for decades, and are now retired, on fixed incomes. Despite CalPERS' promise that rates were to remain level and generally could not be increased, CalPERS chose to raise rates by as much as 85%. The class members contend the increase was unjustified, due to CalPERS' failures in establishing the program and because the increases were not permitted by the contract. The plaintiffs asserted five causes of action against CalPERS: breach of fiduciary duty; breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; rescission; and declaratory and injunctive relief. The court previously certified the breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims for class treatment. CalPERS filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to eliminate the case in its entirety, but the Hon. Ann I. Jones denied the motion, specifically denying summary adjudication for the second cause of action for breach of contract, the third cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the fifth cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief. "CalPERS' unjustified 85% premium increase was unconscionable, violated the terms of the policy and destroyed any semblance of protection members were promised when they purchased these long- term care policies. We are now encouraged that justice may finally be realized," said attorney Michael J. Bidart of Shernoff Bidart Echeverria LLP. "CalPERS should be made to honor the promises it made to its faithful members." With respect to the breach of contract claim, CalPERS argued the policy language gave it the right to raise premiums for any reason, and that the plaintiffs had to file their action years earlier when CalPERS initiated its first rate increase in 2003. But plaintiffs contended that the policy did not permit the 85% rate increases that targeted only certain members based on whether they purchased inflation protection or lifetime benefits, and the contract expressly prohibited rate increases "as a result" of the inflation protection benefit. Plaintiffs also contended that they were not required to file suit until CalPERS raised the rates by 85% in 2013, and CalPERS had previously not advised plaintiffs that members receiving specific benefits were being targeted. Ultimately, Judge Jones sided with the plaintiffs on this issue. "Shockingly, after paying premiums for many years for future long- term care protection, very good, hardworking people were left hanging out to dry as a result of these astronomical rate increases," said attorney Gregory L. Bentley of Bentley & More LLP. "CalPERS targeted their own members with promises of protection they did not keep. It is not right, and is unacceptable." The case is Elma Sanchez, Holly Wedding, Richard M. Lodyga and Eileen Lodyga et al. v. CalPERS et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC517444. The attorneys on the case are Michael J. Bidart of Shernoff Bidart Echeverria LLP; Gretchen M. Nelson from Nelson & Fraenkel LLP, Gregory L. Bentley of Bentley & More LLP; and Stuart C. Talley from Kershaw, Cook & Talley, PC. [GN] For more information, and for updates on the case, please go to http://www.calpersclassactionlawsuit.com/. CAMDEN, NJ: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Detention Program ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kelly Rosen. The case is captioned as BRITTAN B. HOLLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and LEXINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, the Plaintiffs, v. KELLY ROSEN, Pretrial Services Team Leader; MARY E COLALILLO, Camden County Prosecutor; CHRISTOPHER PORRINO, Attorney General of New Jersey, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04317-RMB-KMW (D.N.J., June 14, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Renee Marie Bumb. The suit seeks compensation for the injuries Plaintiffs suffered as a result of Defendants' unconstitutional conduct. According to the complaint, Mr. Holland stands accused but unconvicted of a crime. Under bedrock principles of American law, he is presumed innocent. And like all innocent people, he is presumptively entitled to liberty from any pre-trial restraint. Holland was arrested after an alleged bar fight and charged with assault. He has a job, a supportive family, a residence in the community, and part-time custody of his son. Given his ties to the community and lack of a criminal record, he would have been eligible for release on bail before New Jersey's enactment of the Civil Justice Reform Act (CJRA), and he could have paid a nonexcessive amount of bail to secure his future appearance, likely with the help of a surety company like Plaintiff Lexington National. He then would have enjoyed his full pre-trial liberty, just like any other presumptively innocent member of society. Instead, under the CJRA, the court never had the option to set bail, let alone to give Holland the opportunity to post it. Instead, relying on a new "risk assessment tool," the court concluded that Holland's appearance could be secured by a set of restrictive non-monetary conditions, including home detention, an electronic monitor that he must wear around his ankle constantly and that tracks his movement 24 hours a day, and a requirement that he report to the pretrial services office every two weeks-- even if it disrupts his job. As a result, Holland's liberty is sharply curtailed, the Complaint says. Among other things, he cannot shop for food or basic necessities and cannot take his son to baseball practice, an important aspect of his custodial responsibilities and his efforts to bond with his child.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul D. Clement, Esq. Michael F. Williams, Esq. Christopher G. Michel, Esq. Andrew C. Lawrence, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 879 5000 E-mail: michael.williams@kirkland.com - and - Justin T. Quinn, Esq. ROBINSON MILLER LLC One Newark Center 19th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 690 5400 E-mail: jquinn@rwmlegal.com CHICAGO BRIDGE: Faces "Giantonio" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN J. GIANTONIO, on behalf of the Chicago Bridge & Iron Savings Plan, The Shaw Group Inc. 401(k) Plan, himself, and a class consisting of similarly situated participants of the Plans v. CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY, INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, PLAN ADMINISTRATOR, STEPHEN H. DIMLICH, JR., WESTLEY S. STOCKTON, SHEILA FELDMAN, JOHN DOES 1-20, and RICHARD ROES 1-20, Case No. 1:17-cv-04251-UA (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, effective January 1, 2016, the Plan was amended and restated to merge the Plan with The Shaw Group Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Shaw Plan" and together with the Shaw Plan the "Plans"). The action is also brought derivatively on behalf of the Shaw Plan and its assets. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, who are fiduciaries of the Plans, failed to protect the interests of the Plans' Participants in violation of the Defendants' legal obligations under the ERISA. CB&I provides a range of services to customers in the energy infrastructure market across the world. The Company managed and administered the Plans and the assets of the Plans and acted as a fiduciary with respect to the Plans, or appointed a committee to do so. Defendant Plan Administrator is the administrator for the Plans. Stephen H. Dimlich, Jr., is CB&I's Senior Vice President, Corporate Human Resources. Westley S. Stockton is CB&I's Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer. Sheila Feldman is CB&I's Executive Vice President, Chief Human Resources Officer. The Doe and Roe Defendants are the unknown Plan Administrators, members of the Committee, or any other committee(s) which administered the Plans, and all members thereof.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Klein, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687-7230 Facsimile: (212) 490-2022 E-mail: mklein@ssbny.com CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Faces "Monroe" Suit in E.D. Michigan -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cellco Partnership. The case is styled as Eric Monroe, the Plaintiff, v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17- cv-11892-GAD-EAS (E.D. Mich., June 14, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. Cellco Partnership provides wireless, residential, and business telecommunications products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tad T. Roumayah, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ One Town Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355 0300 Facsimile: (248) 746 4001 E-mail: troumayah@sommerspc.com CELLULAR CITY: "Morales" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN MORALES, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CELLULAR CITY OF MASSAPEQUA, INC.; AMAN SINGH; and/or any other related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 605602/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime wages, and unpaid commissions pursuant to the New York Labor Law (NYLL). According to the complaint, beginning in May 2011 and continuing through the present, Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of failing to pay all wages and commissions owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees in violation of NYLL.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, New York 11514 Telephone: (516) 873 9550 CENTURYLINK: Faces Three Class Actions Over Alleged Billing Fraud ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that citing thousands of complaints on social media, three class actions accuse telecommunications company CenturyLink of fraud, double-dealing and using phony and inflated fees to cheat millions of consumers of as much as $12 billion. A nationwide federal class action filed June 18 in Los Angeles claims CenturyLink promises customers phone, data and cable TV service at one price but bills them much more and threatens them with high cancellation fees if they try to quit. "It is estimated that the damages to consumers could range between $600 million and $12 billion, based on CenturyLink's 5.9 million subscribers," according to named plaintiffs Craig McLeod of Alabama and Steven McCauley of Kansas. A similar federal class action was filed on June 19 in Portland, Oregon, and a state class action was filed June 14 in Maricopa County Court, Phoenix. Arriving as the Monroe, La.-based CenturyLink is in the middle of its $34 billion acquisition of multinational competitor Level 3 Communications, more such lawsuits can be expected, said Ben Meiselas, with Geragos & Geragos, one of Messrs. McLeod and McCauley's attorneys. "There are consumers in every state that have reached out to us," Mr. Meiselas said. "We'll be filing in all states where consumers are victims." The Los Angeles complaint states that "a digital revolt against CenturyLink's fraud has been fomented by subscribers on social media and consumer watchdog websites." The 19-page lawsuit claims thousands of complaints from CenturyLink customers have been posted on Facebook, Reddit, Twitter and consumer websites. "This is one of the most outraged and passionate groups of consumers I've ever been involved with," Mr. Meiselas said. In Phoenix, former customer service employee Heidi Heiser claims CenturyLink fired her after she complained that the company was cheating customers of "many millions of dollars" for services they had not authorized. Ms. Heiser's lawsuit says there are "frightening parallels between the Wells Fargo Bank scandal and what she saw happening at Century Link." And on June 19 in Portland, Oregon customer Heather Gonsoir claimed that CenturyLink, "as part of its billing pattern and practice . . . systematically and intentionally overcharged tens of thousands of Oregon customers." Ms. Gonsoir is represented by Michael Fuller with Olsen Daines; Geragos is co-counsel. Both federal complaints give credit to Heiser's whistleblower action in Arizona. CenturyLink spokesman Mark Molzen, said in an email that "opportunistic follow-on claims are not unexpected" after a suit like Heiser's. "The fact that a law firm is trying to leverage a wrongful termination suit into a putative class action lawsuit does not change our original position," Mr. Molzen said. "The allegations made by our former employee are completely inconsistent with our company policies, culture and Unifying Principles, which include honesty and integrity," he continued. "We take these allegations seriously and are diligently investigating this matter." The plaintiffs say they didn't see the honesty and integrity. Mr. McLeod, 65, says he was promised upgraded internet speed for $2 more per month. Instead, his monthly bill doubled to $80, and he was hit with undisclosed "wiring charges" for having a technician swap out his modem. When he complained about excessive and unexpected charges on his bill, "CenturyLink told him it was his 'fault' for not catching its fraudulent charges," the complaint states. Mr. McCauley, from a small town in Kansas, was paying CenturyLink $48 a month for internet service and was told he could be put on a new plan at $27.99. He was shocked, he says in the lawsuit, when a bill for $80 arrived. When he complained, he was told that the company had no $27.99 plan but he could be put on a contract for $43 a month. When he asked to drop his service, he was told he would have to pay a $200 termination fee. "Mr. McCauley remains trapped in an exorbitant contract he never agreed to enter," his complaint states. Meanwhile in Oregon, Ms. Gonsoir discovered her monthly fee for bundled services was more than twice what the salespeople at her door had promised. She was told she would have to pay a previously undisclosed $240 cancellation fee to quit. "Plaintiff later discovered she wasn't alone. As it turned out, several of plaintiff's neighbors were also ripped off by CenturyLink, Inc.'s unlawful billing tactics," she says. Ms. Gonsoir says she has since learned that CenturyLink's "pattern and practice of misleading customers about the costs of its services are well-known within the industry, and among utility regulators." Ms. Gonsoir cites an article in The Oregonian newspaper showing a 54 percent increase in complaints to regulators in 2015 alone. She seeks damages and punitive damages, for violations of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act. The national plaintiffs seek damages for fraud, unfair competition and unjust enrichment. Mr. Meiselas said he believes these and future class actions against CenturyLink eventually will be consolidated in some manner. [GN] CENTURYLINK INC: Faces Class Action Over Sales Incentive Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- Polly Mosendz and Scott Moritz, writing for Bloomberg News, report that CenturyLink Inc. sued by a former employee for allegedly running a sales incentive scheme and firing her for drawing attention to it, is now the subject of a class-action complaint seeking damages as high as $12 billion. The complaint, which comes as the Monroe, La., telecommunications company is in the midst of a $34 billion merger with Level 3 Communications Inc., seeks to establish a class of consumers harmed by an alleged high-pressure sales culture. The self- proclaimed whistleblower, Heidi Heiser, says such a culture left customers paying millions of dollars for accounts they didn't request. The new lawsuit, filed in the central district of California late on June 18, cites Ms. Heiser's suit, as well as similar accusations posted on social media and consumer review websites by people identifying themselves as CenturyLink customers, and accuses CenturyLink of fraud, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. "Ms. Heiser's allegations of what she observed, and what CenturyLink corporate culture encouraged, are consistent with the experiences of hundreds of thousands and potentially millions of consumers who have been defrauded by CenturyLink," the complaint states. "It is estimated that the damages to consumers could range between $600 million and $12 billion, based on CenturyLink's 5.9 million subscribers." "The fact that a law firm is trying to leverage a wrongful termination suit into a putative class action lawsuit does not change our original position," Mark Molzen, a CenturyLink spokeman, said in a statement, adding that Ms. Heiser failed to report her allegations to the company's 24-hour Integrity Line. He said her claims "are completely inconsistent" with company policy and culture and that "we take these allegations seriously and are diligently investigating this matter." Class actions are common after contentious allegations against large companies. The June 18 lawsuit was brought on behalf of the consumers by the Geragos & Geragos law firm, led by celebrity attorney Mark J. Geragos. Ms. Heiser didn't report her concerns to the Federal Communications Commission or other authorities. The named plaintiffs in the case are Craig McLeod and Steven L. McCauley, both current customers of CenturyLink. During a conversation in early April with a sales agent on CenutryLink's website, Mr. McLeod, 65, was offered a faster internet link for an extra $2 a month with a two-year contract, and accepted, according to the complaint. He alleges he incurred considerably higher fees than quoted and was charged for a repair that never was made. In an interview, Mr. McLeod, a semi-retired truck driver, said that in the area of Alabama where he lives, CenturyLink is the only hardwired internet provider available. "I'm pretty much stuck with CenturyLink," he said. "I am seriously considering moving just because of them. The internet is that important to me." On June 16, CenturyLink's shares fell the most in six weeks on the news of Ms. Heiser's suit, while the shares of merger partner Level 3 also dropped sharply. The merger will put CenturyLink up against powerhouses such as AT&T Inc. in bidding to provide communications services to businesses. CenturyLink, which provides data services nationwide, including hosting, cloud, and information technology services, booked $816 million in net income on $17.5 billion in sales last year. Ms. Heiser's complaint alleges that Ms. Heiser became increasingly concerned about what she observed at CenturyLink after news of Wells Fargo & Co.'s regulatory troubles broke in September. In that case, Wells Fargo employees, to earn incentives and meet sales goals, opened deposit and credit card accounts without customers' consent. Without admitting wrongdoing, Wells Fargo ended up firing more than 5,000 employees and agreeing to pay $185 million in fines, in addition to compensating customers for fees related to the unauthorized accounts. [GN] CHARLES SCHWAB: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on June 12, 2017, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed without prejudice a putative securities class action against Charles Schwab & Co. ("Schwab") under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Crago v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 2017 WL 2540577 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2017). Plaintiffs, Schwab customers who placed trades through Schwab, alleged that Schwab's stated commitment to securing best execution for its clients was false and misleading in light of Schwab's bulk order routing through UBS Securities LLC ("UBS"), as a result of which plaintiffs allegedly suffered harm because they lost the opportunity for price improvement. The Court held that although plaintiffs had standing to pursue their claims, they had insufficiently alleged falsity, scienter, economic loss, loss causation and reliance, and granted leave to replead. Of particular note were the Court's contrasting analyses with respect to standing and economic loss, both of which related to the damages plaintiffs allegedly suffered, namely, lost price improvement resulting from Schwab's failure to seek prices on various exchanges and, instead, to route virtually all non- directed trade orders to UBS. Regarding standing, Schwab argued that plaintiffs' allegations failed to establish "injury in fact" because they had not identified specific trades for which Schwab's practices caused plaintiffs to suffer identifiable losses. The Court rejected this argument, noting that plaintiffs had alleged that Schwab entered into an agreement with UBS to route trades and that Schwab routed a majority of the types of trades plaintiffs engaged in through UBS. Moreover, plaintiffs had specifically alleged that Schwab's average price improvement was less than that of competitors who did not accept payment for order flow, as Schwab did from UBS. Accordingly, the Court found that plaintiffs "advanced sufficient allegations of concrete and particularized harm" to give them the legal right to sue. Id. at *4. However, the Court concluded that plaintiffs failed to plead economic loss with particularity. Although plaintiffs' having alleged that they experienced losses as a result of Schwab's failure to seek the best execution price was sufficient to confer Article III standing, the Court found that these allegations were too generalized to suffice under the PSLRA. Specifically, because plaintiffs did "not indicate any trades on which they actually experienced losses" and had "not identified any trades on which they lost out on price improvement," they could not "state the amount of price improvement of which they were deprived." Id. at *6-7. Thus, plaintiffs had not pleaded actual loss with the particularity required under the PSLRA. This decision demonstrates that an alleged economic injury that may be sufficient to confer standing nevertheless may not be sufficient to plead a claim for securities fraud. [GN] A full-text copy of the June 12, 2017, Order is available at https://is.gd/hoD634 from Leagle.com. Robert Crago, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Christopher McCall, LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP. Robert Wolfson, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, David Jay Stone, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., Jeffrey H. Squire, Bragar Wexler & Eagel P.C., Joshua L. Crowell, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lawrence Paul Eagel, Bragar Eagel and Squire, P.C. & Todd Harris Henderson, Bragar Eagel and Squire, P.C.. Frank Pino, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, David Jay Stone, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., Jeffrey H. Squire, Bragar Wexler & Eagel P.C., Joshua L. Crowell, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lawrence Paul Eagel, Bragar Eagel and Squire, P.C. & Todd Harris Henderson, Bragar Eagel and Squire, P.C.. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Gilbert Ross Serota, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. The Charles Schwab Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gilbert Ross Serota, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. Scott Posson, Movant, represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt, Levi and Korsinsky & Adam Christopher McCall, Levi Korsinsky, LLP. CHICAGO: Faces "Campbell" Suit in Northern District of Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Of Chicago. The case is titled as Immanuel Campbell, Rachel Jackson, Chante Linwood, Deonte Beckwith, Markees Sharkey, Rubin Carter, Justice for Families-Black Lives Matter Chicago, Blocks Together, Network 49, Brighton Park Neighborhood Council, 411 Movement for Pierre Loury, Women's All Points Bulletin, and Black Lives Matter Chicago, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. City Of Chicago, in their individual capacities; Migel Villanueva, Chicago Police Officer (No. 17423) in their individual capacities; Josue Ortiz, Chicago Police Officer (No. 15448) in their individual capacities; Dorothy Cade, Chicago Police Officer (No. 7814) in their individual capacities; Richard Bolin, Chicago Police Officer (No. 14590) in their individual capacities; Waukeesha Morris, Chicago Police Officer (No. 8255) in their individual capacities; Brett Polson, Chicago Police Officer (No. 5612) in their individual capacities; Angel Pena, Chicago Police Officer (No. 7135) in their individual capacities; Jaeho Jung, Chicago Police Officer (No. 13387) in their individual capacities; John Coriell, Chicago Police Officer (No. 14274) in their individual capacities; Chad Boylan, Chicago Police Officer (No. 8200) in their individual capacities; Thomas McGuire, Chicago Police Officer (No. 1337) in their individual capacities; Anthony Ostrowski, Chicago Police Officer (No. 15324) in their individual capacities; Lawrence Gade, Jr., Chicago Police Officer (No. 1841) in their individual capacities; John Lavorata, Chicago Police Officer (No. 8464) in their individual capacities; and Peter Jonas, Chicago Police Officer (No. 5069) in their individual capacities, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04467 (N.D. Ill., June 14, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John Z. Lee. Chicago officially the City of Chicago, is the third-most populous city in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexa Van Brunt, Esq. Bedi A Sheila, Esq. Locke E. Bowman, III, Esq. Vanessa Del Valle, Esq. 375 East Chicago Avenue Roderick Macarthur Justice Center Northwestern University School Of Law Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 503 1336 E-mail: a-vanbrunt@law.northwestern.edu sheila.bedi@law.northwestern.edu l-bowman@law.northwestern.edu vanessa.delvalle@law.northwestern.edu - and - Craig Benson Futterman, Esq. Randolph N. Stone, Esq. MANDEL LEGAL AID CLINIC 6020 South University Avenue Chicago, IL 60637 Telephone: (312) 702 9611 E-mail: futterman@uchicago.edu RN-stone@uchicago.edu - and - Andrew Martin Stroth, Esq. ACTION INJURY LAW GROUP, LLC 191 North Wacker Dr. Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 735 4045 E-mail: astroth@actioninjurylawgroup.com - and - Carlton E. Odim, Esq. ODIM LAW OFFICES 225 West Washington Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 578 9390 E-mail: caruaodim@gmail.com CHICAGO BRIDGE: Faces "Giantonio" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN J. GIANTONIO, on behalf of the Chicago Bridge & Iron Savings Plan, The Shaw Group Inc. 401(k) Plan, himself, and a class consisting of similarly situated participants of the Plans v. CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY, INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, PLAN ADMINISTRATOR, STEPHEN H. DIMLICH, JR., WESTLEY S. STOCKTON, SHEILA FELDMAN, JOHN DOES 1-20, and RICHARD ROES 1-20, Case No. 1:17-cv-04251-UA (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, effective January 1, 2016, the Plan was amended and restated to merge the Plan with The Shaw Group Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Shaw Plan" and together with the Shaw Plan the "Plans"). The action is also brought derivatively on behalf of the Shaw Plan and its assets. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, who are fiduciaries of the Plans, failed to protect the interests of the Plans' Participants in violation of the Defendants' legal obligations under the ERISA. CB&I provides a range of services to customers in the energy infrastructure market across the world. The Company managed and administered the Plans and the assets of the Plans and acted as a fiduciary with respect to the Plans, or appointed a committee to do so. Defendant Plan Administrator is the administrator for the Plans. Stephen H. Dimlich, Jr., is CB&I's Senior Vice President, Corporate Human Resources. Westley S. Stockton is CB&I's Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer. Sheila Feldman is CB&I's Executive Vice President, Chief Human Resources Officer. The Doe and Roe Defendants are the unknown Plan Administrators, members of the Committee, or any other committee(s) which administered the Plans, and all members thereof.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Klein, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687-7230 Facsimile: (212) 490-2022 E-mail: mklein@ssbny.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Gordon" Suit Over Data Security Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- TODD GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01415-CBS (D. Col., June 9, 2017), was filed individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated whose personal and non-public information, including credit card and debit card numbers, credit card and debit card expiration dates, credit and debit card security information, and other credit and debit card information was compromised in a massive security breach of Defendant's computer servers beginning on March 24, 2017 and lasting until April 18, 2017. Allegedly, Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to employ adequate security measures or to properly protect sensitive payment card information despite well-publicized data breaches at large national retail and restaurant chains in recent years, including Arby's, Wendy's, Noodles & Company, Target, Home Depot, Sally Beauty, Harbor Freight Tools, P.F. Chang's, Dairy Queen, and Kmart. Chipotle operates a chain of approximately 2,249 fast-casual Chipotle restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Jessica L. Titler, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP One Haverford Centre 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: (610) 642-8500 Email: bfj@chimicles.com awf@chimicles.com jlt@chimicles.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: "Blanco" Suit Sues over Consumer Report ------------------------------------------------------------- RENE BLANCO, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01391-EAK-JSS (Fla. Cir. Ct. Hillsborough Cty., June 13, 2017), seeks statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees, equitable relief, and other appropriate relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). According to the complaint, Defendant on August 1, 2016, procured a consumer report on Plaintiff by using the services of a third- party vendor. The Defendant willfully violated this requirement by failing to provide Plaintiff and the putative class with a copy of a document consisting solely of a disclosure stating that Defendant may obtain a consumer report on Plaintiff and the putative class for employment purposes, prior to obtaining a copy of their consumer reports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com rcooke@wfclaw.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: "Canale" Suit Stayed Pending FTC Investigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Cathy Seibel of the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss or stay the case captioned LORI CANALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., Defendant, No. 16-CV-3308 (CS)(S.D. N.Y.). The Defendant sells Colgate Optic White and Colgate Optic White Platinum toothpastes at a premium price to capitalize on consumer demand for whitening toothpaste. Since October 2013, the Defendant has represented that Colgate Optic White toothpaste "Goes Beyond Surface Stain Removal to Deeply Whiten" teeth. Since February 2014, it has represented that Colgate Optic White Platinum toothpaste "Deeply Whitens More Than 3 Shades." Both toothpastes contain the same supposedly whitening ingredient -- 1% hydrogen peroxide. The Plaintiff filed her putative class action on May 3, 2016 bringing claims for breach of express warranty individually and on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased Optic White on or after Oct. 1, 2013, or who purchased Optic White Platinum on or after Feb. 1, 2014. She also brings claims for violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law individually and on behalf of all purchasers of Optic White products in New York. The basis for all three claims is the Defendant's claim that its Optic White products go beyond surface stains to deeply whiten teeth, which the Plaintiff alleges is false and misleading. Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss or stay the case. The Defendant first argues that the Plaintiff's claims under state law are expressly preempted by the Food Drug & Cosmetics Act ("FDCA"), and should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It argues that as both a drug and a cosmetic, its Optic White products are subject to "broad" regulation by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). Where federal law specifically regulates the subject matter of a plaintiff's state law claims, and those claims seek to impose requirements not identical to federal requirements, those state law claims are preempted. The Defendant argues that state law claims are preempted whenever they would add labeling restrictions or requirements beyond those in the FDCA, even where the FDA has not specifically addressed the label claims at issue. The Court finds that the Defendant has thus not identified any federal requirements applicable to its Optic White products beyond the FDCA's general prohibition against false and misleading labeling. Because that general prohibition is identical to the requirement the Plaintiff seeks to impose through her claims under state law, those claims are not expressly preempted. Even if the Plaintiff's claims are not preempted, the Defendant argues that they should be stayed or dismissed under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, given that the FTC is currently investigating the issue of which the Plaintiff complains. The Court says the Defendant is correct that because the FTC is currently in the process of reviewing the validity of the exact claims at issue in this litigation, the risk that it would be subjected to inconsistent rulings is particularly high. This factor also favors deferring decision to the FTC, given its ongoing investigation as to whether the claims at issue are supported. The Court finds that a stay is appropriate here to protect the Plaintiff should she wish to pursue the matter following the FTC's action. For the reasons stated, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case. This case is stayed until the conclusion of the FTC's investigation. The Defendant is to provide status updates every six months (and promptly upon the conclusion of the FTC inquiry). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/fgmJA6 from Leagle.com. Lori Canale, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick John Klorczyk -- fklorczyk@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.. Lori Canale, Plaintiff, represented by Philip Lawrence Fraietta -- pfraietta@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Joseph Ignatius Marchese -- jmarchese@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.. Melissa L Vigil, Movant, represented by Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Defendant, represented by Nathaniel Jacob Kritzer -- nathaniel.kritzer@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Richard William Nicholson, Jr. -- richard.nicholson@kirkland.com - - Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Robyn Eileen Bladow -- rbladow@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &Ellis LLP. CONAGRA: Seeks Reversal of GMO Cooking Oil Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Mateusz Perkowski, writing for Capital Press, reports that a legal dispute over labeling vegetable oil as "natural" even though it contains genetically engineered ingredients could have repercussions for other food-related class action lawsuits. Earlier this year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a lawsuit against the Conagra food processing company to proceed as a class action, which means numerous consumers who bought its Wesson vegetable oil can join in the litigation. The complaint alleges that Conagra deceived consumers with labels claiming the oil was "100% Natural" despite being derived from genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, which aren't considered natural. Conagra now wants the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the class action designation because there's no way to "efficiently and reliably identify" the millions of people who've bought Wesson oil over the past decade. "That left only one other possible source of information about the transactions -- consumers' memories of low-value grocery store purchases, recalled years later in hopes of a cash reward," Conagra said in its Supreme Court review request. Apart from having implications for foods containing GMOs, the lawsuit is seen by food manufacturers as emblematic of a broader problem with litigation over labeling. The number of lawsuits over food labels has "ballooned" over the past decade, increasing from fewer than 20 federal class actions to more than 400, according to the Grocery Manufacturers Association. "Some of these lawsuits raise claims so frivolous they border on comical: Do consumers really think that the name 'Froot Loops' means that the cereal is made of fruit? Are coffee drinkers really surprised to learn that iced lattes, in fact, contain some ice?" GMA said in a court brief. "But to defendants facing the settlement pressure that comes with a certified class, the explosion of food and beverage litigation is no laughing matter." Although class certification doesn't mean the plaintiffs have won the case, courts have recognized the designation tremendously increases potential financial liability -- to the point where companies often decide to settle questionable cases they'd otherwise prefer to fight. Conagra, GMA and other business groups believe the nation's highest court should review the GMO vegetable oil case due to a "circuit split" among federal appellate courts. There's no requirement for plaintiffs to reliably identify a multitude of class members in the 9th Circuit, 6th Circuit and 7th Circuit, but such a test exists in the 2nd Circuit, 3rd Circuit, 4th Circuit and 11th Circuit, they argue. California federal courts are particularly popular among food labeling plaintiffs, with roughly two-thirds of such class actions filed in that state. Very similar cases "sail through" class certification in some jurisdictions while they're blocked in others, according to Conagra. Food manufacturers claim this "circuit split" has undermined the uniformity of food labeling rules set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that are meant to provide companies with regulatory certainty across the country. "Yet, the circuit split encourages plaintiffs to continue to deputize California federal courts as food labeling agencies on matters within the agency's purview," the GMA said. The plaintiffs in the Conagra case have urged the Supreme Court against reviewing the lawsuit, arguing that the "circuit split" isn't severe and will likely be resolved by appellate courts on their own. The requirements for class action status sought by Conagra would effectively "place allegations of widespread consumer fraud beyond the reach of the legal system," the plaintiffs claim in a court brief. Identifying class members before a class is certified is premature, since the total damages owed by the company can be calculated without knowing the identity of specific people, the plaintiffs said. [GN] DEJA VU SERVICES: Settlement in Exotic Dancers' Suit Has Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted final approval of settlement and Plaintiffs' request for attorney fees and costs in the case captioned, JANE DOE 1-2, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DEJA VU SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-10877 (E.D. Mich.). In a collective and class action complaint, Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and 2 alleged that Defendants Deja Vu Services, Inc., DV Saginaw, LLC, Harry Mohney, and Deja Vu affiliated nightclubs violated of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, state wage and hour laws, and the California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants intentionally misclassified class members as independent contractors, refused to pay minimum wage, unlawfully required employees to split gratuities, and unlawfully deducted employee wages through rents, fines, and penalties. The parties reached a settlement and filed a motion to transfer the case to the Court, because the proposed settlement affected the parties' rights and obligations under the Cin-Lan settlement. On February 7, 2017, the Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed settlement because it suffered from no obvious deficiencies and appeared to fall within "the range of possible approval." After the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, and an Amended Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs the Court received five objections: from C.T. (represented by W. Allen McDonald), B.D (represented by Daniel Arciniegas), Eva Cabrera and Brittney Halverson (represented by Guy Conti and Harold Lichten), Stephanie Sage (not represented by counsel), and Merry Clark (also not represented by counsel). The major point of contention between the parties and the objectors is whether the settlement adequately compensates class members for release of their claims. And second, the objectors contend that, given the value of the claims released, the settlement vastly under-compensates class members. In an Opinion dated June 19, 2017 available at https://is.gd/Qpa5pH from Leagle.com, Judge Murphy found that (1) the high risk of continued litigation and the uncertain likelihood of success on the merits weigh heavily in favor of approval, (2) the parties have provided the "best notice that is practicable under the circumstances"; (3) the proposed class settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate; and (4) request for attorney fees is reasonable. The Court dismissed Defendants' motion to dismiss or stay proceedings in favor of arbitration and for attorney fees and costs. Jane Doe 2, et al. are represented by Jason J. Thompson, Esq. -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- and -- Jesse L. Young, Esq. -- jyoung@sommerspc.com -- SOMMERS SCHWARTZ -- Megan Bonanni, Esq. Rachael Elizabeth Kohl, Esq. PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS PC 117 W 4th St #200, Royal Oak, MI 48067 Tel: (248)398-9800 Deja Vu Consulting, Inc, et al. are represented by Bradley J. Shafer, Esq. -- bshafer@swartzcampbell.com -- and -- Matthew J. Hoffer, Esq. -- mhoffer@swartzcampbell.com -- SHAFER AND ASSOC Eva Cabrera, et al. are represented by Harold Lichten, Esq. -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC DICOM MIDWEST: Failed to Pay Earned Wages, "Grady" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSHUA GRADY, on his own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DICOM MIDWEST, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 17-1885-F (Mass. Super. Ct., June 12, 2017), seeks to recover all compensation not properly remitted, non- discretionary treble damages, and an award of attorney's fees under Massachusetts Wage Act. The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant, hired to deliver Amazon packages -- he brings this matter on his own behalf, and on behalf of those individuals similarly situated, alleging that he was denied the payment of earned wages and overtime premiums. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated allege that the Defendant's unlawful and inexplicable failure to furnish earned wages for each and every hour actually worked is a violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act. Dicom is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Woburn, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Bace, Esq. BACE LAW GROUP, LLC PO Box 9316 Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (508) 922 8328 E-mail: mjb@bacelaw.com - and - John R. Bita, III, Esq. Tempus Fugit Law LLC 183 State Street, 2nd Floor Telephone: (617) 538 5407 E-mail: jrb@bitalaw.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Affirms Rulings in "Child Find" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned DL, ET AL., Appellees, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL., Appellants, No. 16-7076 (D.C. Cir.), Judge David S. Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings in all respects. In 2005, the parents of six children, ages three to six, sued the District of Columbia, alleging that it was violating the "Child Find" requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by failing to provide special education to their children and hundreds of other preschoolers with disabilities. The district court certified the suit as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, found the District liable, and entered a comprehensive injunction designed to bring the District into compliance with IDEA. On appeal, the District argues that the case has become moot because the six named Plaintiffs are no longer toddlers with a stake in the requested relief. The District also challenges the class certification and argues that the injunction exceeds the district court's authority. In this case, the mootness issue stems neither from the lack of real dispute nor from any deficiency in the parents' advocacy, but rather from judicial error. The separation of powers concerns that animate justiciability jurisprudence are absent in this context. In Geraghty, the Court emphasized that the two elements of a justiciable controversy can exist with respect to class certification notwithstanding the fact that the named Plaintiff's claim on the merits has expired. Both elements remain present here. Having concluded that the relation back doctrine applies, the Court have no need to consider whether the parents' claims also fall under the "inherently transitory" exception to mootness. It thus turned to the District's challenge to class certification. To certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2), a single injunction must be able to provide relief to each member of the class. The district court's comprehensive order does just that. Rule 23(b)(2) exists so that parties and courts, especially in civil rights cases like this, can avoid piecemeal litigation when common claims arise from systemic harms that demand injunctive relief. The Rule 23(b)(2) class action, in other words, was designed for exactly this sort of suit. This brings the Court to the District's challenges to the injunction. It finds that it is true that courts may remedy certain IDEA disputes, such as a parent's claim that a child's IEP is defective, only through "individualized" relief. But to argue, as does the District, that this limitation also applies to violations of the Child Find requirement ignores that, unlike a parent worried about her child's IEP, the parents in this case challenge systemic defects in the District's identification and eligibility determination policies, which harm all unidentified preschoolers and can only be remedied by a comprehensive injunction designed to bring the District into compliance with IDEA. Having considered each of the District's challenges, the Court is convinced that the district court made no mistake. So long as the District of Columbia accepts federal funding, it is bound to its pledge to find, evaluate, and serve all children with disabilities. The district court neither erred nor abused its discretion in holding the District to its word. The Court affirmed in all respects. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 opinion is available at https://is.gd/KcyjHM from Leagle.com. Lucy E. Pittman, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, argued the cause for appellants. With her on the briefs were Karl A. Racine, Attorney General, Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, and Loren L. AliKhan, Deputy Solicitor General. Todd A. Gluckman -- tgluckman@tpmlaw.com -- argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Margaret A. Kohn -- argaret.Kohn07@gmail.com -- Cyrus Mehri -- cmehri@findjustice.com -- Carolyn S. Pravlik -- cansay@torcivialaw.com -- and Patrick A. Sheldon -- psheldon@FoUm.law. Iris Y. Gonz†lez, Daniel B. Kohrman, Kelly R. Bagby, Sharon Krevor-Weissbaum -- skw@browngold.com -- Ira A. Burnim, Mary Nell McGarity Clark, and Martha Jane Perkins were on the brief for amici curiae AARP, et al. in support of appellees. Jon M. Greenbaum -- jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org -- entered an appearance. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: WMATA Wins Summary Judgment in "Dawson" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ARTHUR DAWSON et al., Plaintiffs, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-2092 (RBW) (D.D.C.), Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Defendants motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, commonly known as WMATA, asserting claims for breach of their employment contracts. Between 2012 and 2015, the Plaintiffs were employed by WMATA as supervisors. They claim that WMATA's Metro Policy/Instruction 7.5.1, constitutes a contract mandating that they, as supervisors, be paid at an amount equal to or greater than 5% of their direct reports, and that WMATA has breached the alleged contract by refusing to pay them according to the 5% differential. In relevant part, the Policy states that it is structured to address base salary adjustments using two distinct approaches: (a) comprehensive salary review and (b) individual salary adjustments. The Complaint places at issue only the comprehensive salary review component of WMATA's salary adjustment approach. Pertinent to this dispute, the Policy further states that compression occurs when a supervisor or manager experiences less than a 5% higher pay differential between their salary and that of their highest paid direct reporting subordinate. According to the Policy, comprehensive salary adjustments are subject to budgetary conditions and approval by the General Manager/Chief Executive Officer who retains the discretion to modify, change, or expand the salary structure. Moreover, for fiscal considerations or circumstances deemed to be in the best interests of WMATA, the General Manager may establish a cap or limitation on general comprehensive salary adjustment amounts. WMATA's answer to the complaint denied that the Policy constitutes a contract. Currently pending before the Court is Defendant WMATA's motion for Summary Judgment, in which it asserts that the Plaintiffs' claims must fail because no contract exists which is a prerequisite for establishing the alleged breach. The Court therefore ordered the parties to conduct discovery on the question of whether a valid and enforceable contract exists, and to file motions for summary judgment on this threshold, dispositive issue. Upon a review of the Policy, the Court concludes that its clear language demonstrates that it does not create a contract between the Plaintiffs and WMATA that mandates the 5% pay differential. It has long been true that to form a binding agreement, both parties must have the distinct intention to be bound; without such intent, there can be no assent and therefore no contract. For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden to establish that a valid and enforceable contract was created between them and WMATA, because the Policy does not show that WMATA intended to be bound by the 5% pay differential as the plaintiffs claim. The Court therefore granted WMATA's motion for summary judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 memorandum opinion is available at https://is.gd/uFKwzc from Leagle.com. ARTHUR DAWSON, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Kenney, DK ASSOCIATES, LLC. ARTHUR DAWSON, Plaintiff, represented by Morris Eli Fischer -- morris@mfischerlaw.com -- MORRIS E. FISCHER, LLC. RONALD MOORE, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Kenney, DK ASSOCIATES, LLC & Morris Eli Fischer, MORRIS E. FISCHER, LLC. GREGORY PETERS, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Kenney, DK ASSOCIATES, LLC & Morris Eli Fischer, MORRIS E. FISCHER, LLC. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant, represented by Clifton M. Mount, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY & Janice Lynn Cole, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. DIVINE QUALITY: Faces "Capote" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- LEONARDO CAPOTE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. DIVINE QUALITY CARE, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and VENISHIA Q. JORDAN, individually Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22173-JLK (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2017), alleges that Defendants have violated the wage and hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by depriving Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of payment of overtime wages. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, regularly worked for Defendants in excess of forty (40) hours per week. Defendants perform care and health related services that utilize, in part, equipment, tools, goods, machinery, computers, telephones, phone systems, and other materials and supplies to engage in interstate commerce. Plaintiff work for Defendants in the course of his utilizing equipment, tools, machinery, buckets, medical products, and other medical goods and supplies that moved through interstate commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose A. Socorro, Esq. SOCORRO LAW, PA 355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 444-6628 Fax: (305) 444-6627 Email: jose@socorrolaw.com DNC SERVICES: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Mason, writing for Breitbart, reports that backers of Bernie Sanders are suing the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for fraud based on last summer's hacks revealing systemic bias for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary campaign. The class-action lawsuit, Wilding v. DNC Services Corp., is underway in federal court in Florida, where it is awaiting a ruling on the DNC's motion to dismiss heard in April. The plaintiff class, Bernie donors who also gave money to the DNC under the assumption of its impartiality in the 2016 primary contest between Clinton and Sanders. The suit alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and a consumer protection violation. The claims are based on the celebrated leaked emails and memos from the "Guccifer 2.0" hacks last June. The leaks appear to show direct assistance of Secretary Clinton to the detriment of Senator Sanders. The novel legal theory is based on the donors having been duped by the DNC's claims of impartiality. Attorney Jared Beck -- jared@beckandlee.com -- of Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers, the firm representing the class of Bernie supporters, spoke with Breitbart News about the developing case and the surrounding controversies. The entire case shot into the public eye when, according to a notice Beck & Lee filed with the court, their office received a call asking for information about the case from a person using a voice-altering device. A quick lookup of the number revealed it was from a number associated with the congressional office of DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL). The DNC's attorney's quickly denied any knowledge of the incident, claim the number is from an unused office and is possibly the result of number "spoofing" by an outside source. Asked about the call, Mr. Beck told Breitbart News: "The incident was startling at the time it happened and we are still very puzzled and concerned by it. The caller had altered his or her voice to be unrecognizable, and refused to identify themselves. But please understand that this is just one in a number of disturbing events that have occurred throughout the case . . . I have no idea who was behind the call, but according to the Defendants, the matter has been referred to the Capitol Police." As for the case itself, Mr. Beck was confident that general common law principles of fraud and misrepresentation could sustain the Bernie-donors' claim. "If there is anything "new," it is the application of these principles to the sphere of political campaigns," he said. Mr. Beck went on to describe that application as follows: "One might view this application as a natural consequence of Citizens United -- an opinion that crystallizes campaign contributions as the quintessential form of American political participation. By equating political participation with financial contribution, Citizens United, by inference, incorporates all of the common-law principles of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, etc. that typically govern in the economic sphere. Americans have a cognizable interest in the transparent and fair conduct of primary campaigns precisely because they, through their campaign contributions, are also financiers of the campaign." Asked to make an analogy to a more traditional case of fraud outside the political realm, Mr. Beck compared the DNC's actions with a "Ponzi-scheme," in which investors buy in based on fraudulent returns that are really just earlier investors: "I would think of this as a case against the ultimate political Ponzi scheme. We are used to the concept of Ponzi schemes in the investment world. In my view, the DNC is really no different: it was purporting to be "selling" a fair primary process but in reality was serving as a front for the Hillary Clinton campaign. People lost well over $200 million as a result." Mr. Beck told Breitbart News that there bringing the facts of the DNC's conduct to light: "There are two main goals to the litigation: obtaining justice for our clients through whatever legal remedies are available; and having a trial on the issues, so that the public may know the truth of what happened with respect to the 2016 Democratic nominating process." The circumstances by which the DNC leaks came to light, allegedly by hacks by Russian government agents, has been a major public controversy for nearly a year. If the case survives the motion to dismiss, discovery will begin, potentially bringing a trove of new information to light about the DNC's internal operations and how they came to be the apparent victim of Russian hacking. Mr. Beck was optimistic about the prospects for discovery: "If we do get to the discovery phase, I think it is safe to say that we expect to find much more evidence of the DNC's misconduct, with the publicly released material being only the tip of the iceberg. Also, we will be able to place all of the material witnesses under oath and take their depositions. In addition, we will be able to conduct discovery on the question of how the DNC's internal documents came to be placed into the public domain by Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, which may ultimately be the most important question of all." It is unclear when the court will rule on the motion to dismiss but Judge William Zloch told the parties in April it would "take some time." [GN] DICK SMITH: Faces Shareholder Class Action Following Collapse ------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Peters, writing for Daily Mail Australia, reports that Dick Smith shareholders have launched a multimillion-dollar class action lawsuit claiming they were deceived about the failed electronics store's financial position. Close to 1,000 shareholders, with losses ranging from just $500 to several million dollars, allege they were misled by the company before its collapse in January 2016. Compensation lawyers Bannister Law -- who have represented shareholders in high-profile class actions against Volkswagen, Ford and Bet365 -- will file the class action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. "We actually really do think that the shareholders were deceived and were not told the correct information that they needed to be able to have to make an informed decision," lawyer Diane Chapman told the ABC. "The shareholders were treated very badly -- they had a right to correct information to make an informed decision on the Australian share market. The class action is open to shareholders who purchased Dick Smith shares between November 25, 2013 and January 4, 2016. One of the shareholders hoping to be reimbursed for his losses is airline baggage handler Paul Handley, from Sydney. The father-of-two said he had lost $3,800 -- almost a third of his portfolio -- after getting 'sucked in' to buying shares with the electronics retailer. "That $3,800 was a month's wages for me. I can think of better things to do with $3,800 -- holidays or school fees or just putting some food on the table," he said. The class action is in addition to claims filed earlier this year in the Federal Court by Dick Smith's lenders, National Australia Bank and HSBC. The banks have accused the company of buying 'bad stock' to inflate income and earnings. Dick Smith went into voluntary administration in January 2016 after failing to secure a funds injection from its banks. [GN] DISCOVERY METALS: Piper Alderman Files Shareholder Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Emma Ryan, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that Piper Alderman, together with litigation funder Litigation Capital Management Limited, have announced a proposed shareholder class action on behalf of all shareholders of Discovery Metals Limited. The proposed class action is on behalf of all shareholders of Discovery Metals Limited (in liquidation) who have held shares in the company from November 23, 2012 to February 15, 2013, according to a statement from the firm. It comes after an independent valuation of Discovery Metals Limited that was prepared by KPMG Financial Advisory Services (Australia) Pty Ltd released to the market on November 23, 2012. "The valuation was commissioned by the DML's board to support a recommendation to shareholders in respect of an off-market, takeover bid received from Cathay Fortune Investment Limited seeking to acquire all of the ordinary shares in the mining company for $830 million at $1.70 per share in October 2012," Piper Alderman said. "KPMG concluded in its report, among other things, that the fair market value of a DML share, inclusive of a full premium for control, was within the range of $1.74 to $2.11 per share. At the time DML shares were trading at around $1.65. "Referencing the KPMG valuation, the DML Board recommended shareholders reject the takeover bid on the basis that the offer of $1.70 per share did not reflect the full value of the business and was fair and reasonable." The firm noted that had the offer been accepted by all shareholders, approximately $827 million would have been paid by the bidder. "Following the bid, the share price rapidly declined. By April 18, 2013, DML's average share price was $0.34 and by May 21, 2013, it was $0.20. The share price never recovered and on February 27, 2015, DML entered into voluntary administration," the statement read. According to Piper Alderman, the proposed class action alleged the KPMG valuation was flawed including the fact that KPMG applied, without justification, a 40 per cent uplift to the low-end technical value of DML's primary asset, a copper mine in Botswana (the Boseto Project). "This technical value had been determined by SRK Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd (SRK). The application of this uplift resulted in KPMG's low-end fair value of DML being US$268.4 million higher than the low-end technical value of the Boseto Project as valued by SRK," the firm said. Further commenting on the matter at hand, Piper Alderman partner Simon Morris said that: "In our considered view, but for the flaws in KPMG's approach to valuing DML, KPMG would have formed and expressed the opinion that the takeover offer of $1.70 per share was fair and reasonable". "We believe that shareholders who suffered loss and damage as a result of reliance on the flawed KPMG valuation have causes of action against KPMG in negligence and for breach of relevant provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). "These claims will be fully funded by LCM. Under the LCM funding agreement, a DML shareholder who participates in the action will not be required to pay any fees unless the claim is successful." [GN] DOM'S LAWNMAKER: Gonzalez Sues over Wage and Hour Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ MANUEL GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOM'S LAWNMAKER, INC. AND DOMINICO D'ALONZO, as an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03519-ADS-SIL (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000 for violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment at Dom's Lawnmaker, Inc. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not compensated for his hours in excess of 32 hours each work week for Defendants from November 2014 until November 2016. Dom's Lawnmaker was founded in 1974. The company's line of business includes providing a variety of lawn and garden services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263 9591 EGUMBALL INC: Violates TCPA, Abante Rooter Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING INC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EGUMBALL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-03245-JSC (N.D. Cal., June 6, 2017), seeks damages and other remedies resulting from the alleged illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on its cellular telephone, as well as on its residential telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Egumball, Inc., is an internet marketing company. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com EJR LOGISTICS: "LICEA" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIO LICEA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EJR LOGISTICS, INC. and PETER J. STEIN individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04479 (N.D. Ill., June 14, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay and all earned wages for all time worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a "truck driver" for Defendants. The Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff at the rate of one and one half time their regular rate for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jorge Sanchez, Esq. Baldemar Lopez, Esq. LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 420 6784 ELGIN MENTAL: Faces "Nadzhafaliyev" Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elgin Mental Health Center. The case is captioned as Ali Nadzhafaliyev; Sean Gunderson; Paul Olsson; Abby Grason; James Baker; Mark Owens; Daniel Padilla, Other Similarly situated Detainees who fear retaliation for Participating; and All residents/detainees of the Elgin Mental Health Center, Elgin, Illinois, the Plaintiffs, v. Daniel Hardy; Coleen Delaney; Brian Dawson; Jeff Pharis; Danette Jungles; Bill Epperson; Dr. Langely; Debbie Giardina; Richard Malis; Rhyma Jacobson; Tom Comeford; Daniel Malone; Jeff Pilario; Anderson Freeman; Penny Sanchez; Lorrie Campbell; Sharon Coleman; Carmen Carter; Naina Desai; Ghouse Mouhoudini, in his official & individual capacities; and Elgin Mental Health Center, an Illinois Agency; and Daniel Dyslin, in his official capacity(ies) as general Counsel and legal oversight official for the lllinois Department of Human Services, & the Elgin Mental Health Center & his individual capacity, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04469 (N.D. Ill., June 13, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jorge L. Alonso. Elgin Mental Health Center is a mental health facility.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. EVANS CONSTRUCTION: "Alexander" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ PAUL ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EVANS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00046-GFVT (E.D. Ky., June 14, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant pays straight time for overtime to its hourly laborers. The Plaintiffs are paid an hourly wage. The Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs time and half for hours worked over forty in a workweek. The Plaintiffs regularly work over 40 hours a week and receive only their regular rate of pay for overtime. The Defendant provides personnel to power plants, maintenance facilities and offices to assist with day to day operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 333 W Vine St Ste 1200 Lexington, KE 40507 Telephone: (859) 286 8368 E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com FCA US: Court Lieff Cabraser Lead Atty in Products Liability Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California appointed Lead Counsel and members of the Steering Committee in the case captioned, IN RE CHRYSLER- DODGE-JEEP ECODIESEL MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 17-md-02777-EMC (N.D. Cal.). On April 14, 2017, the Court issued Pretrial Order No. 1 in which it, inter alia, set a hearing date for selection of Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel and Steering Committee. The Court received more than thirty applications in response. In a Pretrial Order dated June 19, 2017 available at https://is.gd/umv0qQ from Leagle.com, Judge Chen appointed Elizabeth J. Cabraser of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein as Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel and Chair of the Steering Committee (PSC). Lead Counsel is expected to consult and work collaboratively with the PSC in decision-making. Steve W. Berman of Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro LLP, David S. Casey of Casey, Gerry, Schenk, Francavilla, Blatt & Penfield LLP, Rachel L. Jensen of Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd LLP, W. Daniel (Dee) Miles, III of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles P.C., Joseph F. Rice of Motley Rice LLC, Lynn Lincoln Sarko of Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Stacey P. Slaughter of Robins Kaplan LLP, Roland Tellis of Baron Budd, P.C. and Lesley E. Weaver of Bleichmar, Fonti & Auld LLP are appointed as members of the PSC. Leigh P. Rende of the Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice is appointed as Government Coordinating Counsel for the interests of the United States. Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel must (1) file a protocol for attorneys' fees, expenses, and/or costs for the Court's approval; (2) meet and confer to discuss adoption of a hearing transcript protocol similar to that adopted in the VW multidistrict litigation; (3) file a consolidated amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of the order; and (4) file a response to the U.S. Government's complaint no later than the filing of Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint. The Court will hold a case management conference on Tuesday, August 8, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. A joint case management conference statement shall be filed no later than a week prior to the conference. Miguel Fragoso, et al. are represented by Derek W. Loeser, Esq. -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. -- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Esq. -- jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- and -- Ryan McDevitt, Esq. -- rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP -- Steve W. Berman, Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP -- Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq. -- bbailey@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY AND GLASSER, LLP -- Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Esq. -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP -- James E. Cecchi, Esq. -- JCecchi@carllabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, PC Gregory Giauque is represented by Jessica Thompson, Esq. -- jessicat@hbsslaw.com -- Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- and -- Steve W. Berman, Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP -- Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. -- tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- and -- Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. -- afriedman@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC -- Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- Jennifer Rebecca Scullion, Esq. -- jscullion@seegerweiss.com -- and -- Scott Alan George, Esq. -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS LLP FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, et al. are represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Esq. -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE -- Kyle Allen Niemi, Esq. -- NIEMEK@sullcrom.com -- Darrell Scott Cafasso, Esq. -- cafassod@sullcrom.com -- Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Esq. -- guffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sharon L. Nelles, Esq. -- nelless@sullcrom.com -- and -- William B. Monahan, Esq. -- monahanw@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL LLP Robert Bosch LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater, Esq. -- mslater@cgsh.com -- and -- Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Esq. -- cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: 8th Cir. Reverses Antitrust Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision to dismiss the case captioned, In re: In Re: Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litigation. Hartig Drug Company; Jason Moore's Texaco, L.L.C., doing business as Moore's Texaco; Mario Ortiz; Stephen Morrison; Steven Tseffos; Glenville Shell, LLC; Zarco USA, Inc.; AQ Investments, LLC; LJax Enterprises, Inc.; J & V Management, LLC; Butch's Central Coastal, Inc.; Zerka's Party Store, Inc.; OM Commercial Neenah Oil, Inc.; CCLAS, Inc.; Hopewell Exxon, LLC; Tuban Petroleum, LLC; 33 and a Third, LLC; Tuban 610, LLC; Highway 182, LLC; West Main Street, LLC; Roth's Country Corner, Inc.; 1919 Airline Hwy., LLC; East Airline, LLC; Gramercy Cheap Smokes, LLC; Conti's Service Center, Inc.; Route 49 Gas & Go, Inc.; Surinder Kaur, Inc., Plaintiffs, Morgan-Larson, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant. Ashville General Store, Inc.; Sean Venezia; Michael S. Harvey; Gregory Ludvigsen; Arthur Hull; Alan Rockwell; James Halgerson; Thomas R. Clark; Bryce Mander; Alex Chernavsky; Arrow Hardware, LLC; Birdie's, Inc.; Alex Chernavsky; Lochraven Sunoco, Inc.; American Auto Repair, Plaintiffs, Johnson Auto Electric, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant. Cedar Holly Investments, LLC; Tuckerton Lumber Company; Ace High Auto Repair & Propane; CEFO Enterprise Corp.; Jon Wall, Inc.; RC Gasoline, Plaintiffs, Speed Stop 32, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant. Zarco USA, Inc.; Dunmore Oil Co., Inc.; JoJo Oil Co., Inc.; Ekonomy Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiffs, Yocum Oil Company, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant. v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. a limited partnership; Ferrellgas, L.P. a limited partnership, doing business as Blue Rhino; AmeriGas Partners, LP a limited partnership; UGI Corporation; AmeriGas Propane, Inc., doing business as AmeriGas Cylinder Exchange; AmeriGas Propane, LP, Defendants-Appellees, No. 15-2789 (8th Cir.). In 2009, a group of plaintiffs -- indirect purchasers who bought tanks from retailers -- filed a class action alleging the Defendants conspired to reduce the amount of propane in the tanks while maintaining the price, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. In 2010, the parties settled. In 2014, the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint against Defendants -- later settled -- for conspiring to artificially inflate tank prices. Later that year, the Plaintiffs in this case -- direct purchasers who bought tanks directly from the Defendants for resale -- sued. They allege the Defendants colluded to decrease the fill level of tanks and continued to charge supracompetitive prices throughout the Class Period. The district court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims as barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, a divided panel of this Court affirmed. In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig., as corrected (Aug. 25, 2016), reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated. This Court granted rehearing en banc. The amended complaint alleges sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to show a continuing violation to restart the statute of limitations, and, therefore, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Because it is not clear from the face of the complaint that the action is barred by the applicable limitations period, the Eighth Circuit held that the district court erred in granting the motion to dismiss. Circuit Judge Shepherd, with whom Circuit Judges Wollman and Loken, join, dissenting, and with whom Circuit Kelly, joins Parts I.B and II of the dissent. Circuit Judge Shepherd finds that the opinion incorrectly interprets Supreme Court precedent, fails to hold the Plaintiffs' complaint to the plausibility standard of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, and ignores the purposes of the antitrust statute of limitations. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/M2vtYW from Leagle.com. Craig Steven O'Dear -- csodear@bryancave.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Richard Frank Lombardo -- RLombardo@sls-law.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellant. James Michael Ponder -- michaeljponder@gmail.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellant. Dianne M. Nast -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Daniel E. Gustafson, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Daniel C. Hedlund, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Stephen D. Susman -- ssusman@susmangodfrey.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellant. Solomon B. Cera -- scera@cerallp.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Jay Norman Varon, for Defendant-Appellee. Brandon J.B. Boulware -- brandonb@germanmay.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Thomas C. Bright -- tbright@cerallp.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellant. R. Bryant McCulley, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Stuart H. McCluer, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Jeremy Suhr -- jeremys@germanmay.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Catesby Ann Major, for Defendant-Appellee. Tracy Robb Hancock -- tracy.hancock@bryancave.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Daniel M. Wall -- dan.wall@lw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Jesse B. McKeithen -- jesse.mckeithen@lw.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Niall Edmund Lynch -- niall.lynch@lw.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Wins Summary Judgment in "Ellis" ----------------------------------------------------- Judge William G. Young of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, JAMES ELLIS and WILLIAM PERRY, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 17-md-02777-EMC (D. Mass.). In the class action, James Ellis (Ellis) and William Perry (Perry), representing a class of similarly situated individuals (collectively, the Plaintiffs), contend that Fidelity Management Trust Company (Fidelity) mismanaged the Fidelity Group Employee Benefit Plan Managed Income Portfolio (the Portfolio), breaching its fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) Section 404(a), 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a). On December 14, 2016, the Court granted Ellis and Perry's unopposed motion to certify a class of "all participants in defined contribution employee pension benefit plans within the meaning of ERISA Section 3(2)(A), 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(2)(A), who invested in the Portfolio from January 1, 2010 until the time of trial." The Court allowed the class to pursue the Plaintiffs' investment management claim, deeming their excessive fees claims waived. Fidelity moved for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' remaining claim for breach of fiduciary duty contending that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish a breach of either the duty of loyalty or the duty of prudence. In a Memorandum and Order dated June 19, 2017 available at https://is.gd/8xFGQh from Leagle.com, Judge Young held that the Plaintiffs have not made a sufficient showing for the Court to continue to entertain the claims against Fidelity because Plaintiffs failed to establish that Fidelity breached the duty of prudence in responding to addressing the Portfolio's investment performance. James Ellis and William Perrry are represented by Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq. -- gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com -- Mark T. Johnson, Esq. -- MJohnson@schneiderwallace.com -- Jason H. Kim, Esq. -- jkim@schneiderwallace.com -- Kyle G. Bates, Esq. -- kbates@schneiderwallace.com -- Michael C. Mckay, Esq. -- mmckay@schneiderwallace.com -- and -- Todd M. Schneider, Esq. -- tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP -- Paul T. Sullivan, Esq. -- psullivan@zelle.com -- Rory D. Zamansky, Esq. -- rzamansky@zelle.com -- Jeffrey A. Gordon, Esq. -- jgordon@zelle.com -- and -- Heather T. Rankie, Esq. -- hrankie@zelle.com -- ZELLE LLP Fidelity Management Trust Company is represented by Alison V. Douglass, Esq. -- adouglass@goodwinlaw.com -- and -- John J. Falvey, Jr., Esq. -- jfalvey@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP -- Brian D. Boyle, Esq. -- bboyle@omm.com -- Gregory Jacob, Esq. -- gjacob@omm.com -- and -- Meaghan VerGow, Esq. -- mvergow@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP FIELDTURF USA: Medford Sues over Artificial Turf Fields ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fieldturf USA Inc. The case is entitled TOWNSHIP OF MEDFORD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FIELDTURF USA INC., a Florida Corporation; FIELDTURF INC., a Canadian Corporation; TARKETT, INC., a Canadian Corporation; and FIELDTURF TARKETT SAS, a French Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04338-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., June 14, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael A. Shipp. The suit seeks to recover compensatory damages, statutory damage, and all other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief recoverable under state law. The case is a federal class action case alleging massive fraud "committed by an industry giant against those least able to bear the cost." According to the Complaint, between the early 2000's and 2012, FieldTurf -- the manufacturer and seller of synthetic grass turf -- knowingly sold synthetic grass turf fields containing a defective monofilament fiber, a component used in synthetic turf fields to form the grass-like fronds -- "Evolution Fiber" -- to Plaintiff and hundreds of other U.S. consumers. According to the complaint, the Artificial Turf Fields were and are inherently defective due to the inferior and defective Evolution Fiber, a defect that also renders the long-term durability and promised performance of the fields impossible. Despite knowing that the Artificial Turf Fields were defective, FieldTurf marketed and sold its defective product with representations that they would last for more than ten years, and would not prematurely degrade. Fieldturf USA engages in manufacturing and installation of infield artificial turf systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 550 Broad Street, Suite 920 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 639 9100 Facsimile: (973) 639 9393 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994 1700 Facsimile: (973) 994 1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. Mark J. Dearman, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750 3000 Facsimile: (561) 750 3364 FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Aug. 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, on June 20 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against FleetCor Technologies, Inc. ("FleetCor" or the "Company") (NYSE: FLT) concerning possible violations of federal securities laws between February 5, 2016 and May 2, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the firm prior to the August 14, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. You can call Brian Lundin, Esq., of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713- 1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com. No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until a class is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member. According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, FleetCor made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company owes its earnings and growth to overcharging customers, disseminating misleading marketing materials, and engaging in predatory sales practices. When this information was released, shares of FleetCor fell in value, causing investors harm according to the Complaint. Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights. [GN] FMS FINANCIAL: Faces "Hopson" Suit in District of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against FMS FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC. The case is captioned as OSHA M. HOPSON, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FMS FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, DONNAMARIE MEYERS, and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04341-JMV-MF (D.N.J., June 14, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez. FMS Financial is a professional debt collection agency for both medical collections and rent collections and financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273 7117 Facsimile: (201) 273 7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com FORD MOTOR: Settles Faulty Transmission Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Lisa Parker, writing for NBC 5, reports that cars that grind, lurch, stutter and sometimes stop in the face of oncoming traffic: over the last six years, owners of a best-selling cars in the U.S. shared their concerns about what some called a safety defect. Today, thousands who are affected get answers. Owners of the 2011-2016 Ford Fiesta and 2012-2016 Ford Focus may be eligible for a class action settlement with Ford. As NBC5 Investigates first reported in 2015, hundreds of drivers nationwide reported problems with the transmission in their cars, some saying they no longer felt safe to drive. Many expressed frustration that Ford offered no recall or remedy to fix the issue, despite growing complaints. Now, Ford reached a settlement agreement with members of a class action lawsuit, though the carmaker admitted no wrongdoing and denied all the allegations in the suit -- including that it intentionally sold a malfunctioning transmission in hundreds of thousands of cars. Are the terms of the settlement a good deal for affected drivers? Not according to Chicago Lemon Law attorney Greg Moss, who has filed more than 100 lawsuits on behalf of Focus and Fiesta owners. "I really hope people take the time to look into other options because cars are the second-most expensive investment outside of your home and there's no reason to accept less than what your maximum compensation should be," Mr. Moss said. Mr. Moss says Ford has quietly settled hundreds of private lawsuits involving the cars, paying out more money than is being offered in the class settlement. For its part, the carmaker told NBC5 Investigates: "Ford is committed to providing our customers with top-quality vehicles. Ford denies all allegations in this lawsuit, but rather than continuing with the litigation, has decided to settle the case and to provide additional assistance to members of the settlement class. We cannot comment further on pending litigation." [GN] FTS USA: 6th Cir. Reverses Calculation of Damages in "Moore" ------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's certification of the case captioned EDWARD MONROE, FABIAN MOORE, and TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FTS USA, LLC and UNITEK USA, LLC, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 14-6063 (6th Cir.), as a collective action, allowance of representative testimony at trial, and use of an estimated-average approach, and reversed the district court's calculation of damages. Edward Monroe, Fabian Moore, and Timothy Williams brought the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, against their employers, FTS USA, LLC and its parent company, UniTek USA, LLC. FTS is a cable-television business for which the plaintiffs work or worked as cable technicians. The district court certified the case as an FLSA collective action, allowing 293 other technicians (collectively, FTS Technicians) to opt in. FTS Technicians allege that FTS implemented a company-wide time-shaving policy that required its employees to systematically underreport their overtime hours. A jury returned verdicts in favor of the class, which the district court upheld before calculating and awarding damages. FTS and UniTek challenge the certification of the case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), the sufficiency of the evidence as presented at trial, the jury instruction on commuting time, and the district court's calculation of damages. In a Decision dated June 19, 2017, available at https://is.gd/5zTTlc from Leagle.com, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the evidence here is sufficient to support the jury's verdict that all FTS Technicians, both testifying and nontestifying, performed work for which they were not compensated. As for the damages calculation to be compensatory, the hourly rates must be recalculated with the correct number of hours to ensure that FTS Technicians receive the pay they would have received had there been no violation. The case is remanded to the district court for recalculation of damages consistent with the opinion. FTS USA, LLC is represented by Colin D. Dougherty, Esq. -- cdougherty@foxrothschild.com -- and -- Jonathan D. Christman, Esq. -- jchristman@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP -- Miguel A. Estrada, Esq. -- mestrada@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CUTCHER LLP Dward Monroe, Fabian Moore and Timothy Williams are represented by Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. -- srey@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP -- and -- William B. Ryan, Esq. Bryce W. Ashby, Esq. DONATI LAW FIRM, LLP 1545 Union Ave, Memphis, TN 38104 Tel: (901)209-5500 GC SERVICES: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Smith" ----------------------------------------- Judge Richard L. Young of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned, FRANCINA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership, and OWNERS RESOURCE GROUP GC GP BUYER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 17-md-02777-EMC (S.D. Ind.). Plaintiff, Francina Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, claims the Defendants, GC Services Limited Partnership and Owner Resource Group GC GP Buyer, LLC, sent her and the putative class a debt collection letter that violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 . Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, filed on October 18, 2016, alleges that Defendants violated Section 1692g by wrongfully informing Plaintiff that disputes must be in writing when, in fact, an oral dispute is valid. She alleges Defendants' letter also violated Sections 1692e and 1692f because the statement -- that any dispute of the debt must be in writing -- was false, deceptive, and misleading, and unfair and unconscionable Defendants move to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). In an Entry dated June 19, 2017 available at https://is.gd/tKtRSo from Leagle.com, Judge Young found that Plaintiff has standing to bring her claims under the FDCPA and that those claims plausibly suggest a right to relief. Francina Smith is represented by: Angie K. Robertson, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S Roberts Rd # 1A, Palos Hills, IL 60465 Tel: (708)974-2900 -- and -- David J. John Thomas Steinkamp, Esq. JOHN T. STEINKAMP AND ASSOCIATES 5214 East Street, Suite D-1 Indiana, IN 46227 Tel: (317)649-4786 GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al. are represented by William S. Helfand, Esq. -- Bill.Helfand@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD SMITH LLP GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Vazquez" Suit over Corvette Z06 Defects -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL VAZQUEZ, MICHAEL MALONE, JONATHAN WHITE, BRIAN NAKEL, JEDEDIAH BLANKS, and SAMEER HAMID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-22209-DPG (S.D. Fla., June 13, 2017), seeks damages and other equitable relief. According to the complaint, GM is aware of the defect and suspended production of the Z06 for a period of time to find a solution to the overheating issue, which it intended to incorporate in the 2017 Z06. GM claimed to have fixed the problem in the 2017 model by switching to a new hood with larger vents and a new supercharger cover. However, this fix does not help consumers with previous models and does not fix the problem. The 2017 still overheats and GM's only answer is to, after the fact, warn owners that automatic transmissions have the potential for overheating. But GM cannot shift its warranty obligations onto its customers. If the Z06s need a different cooling system to actually perform as advertised, then GM should retrofit the cars with these components on its 2015 and 2016 models as well as fix the 2017 model to allow the car to perform as promised. Additionally, GM should address and remedy the problems to the engine, transmission, drivetrain, and other parts that occur as a result of these unintended overheating issues. General Motors is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stuart Z. Grossman, Esq. Rachel Furst, Esq. GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN 2525 Ponce de Leon, Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (888) 296-1681 Facsimile: (305) 285-1668 E-mail: szg@grossmanroth.com rwf@grossmanroth.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Shelby Smith, 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 shelbys@hbsslaw.com - and - Jason D. Weisser, Esq. SCHULER, HALVORSEN, WEISSER, ZOLLER, OVERBECK 1615 Forum Place, Suite 4 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 689 9180 GEORGIA: Faces "Dingler" Suit in Northern District of Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The State of Georgia. The case is styled as Joseph Dingler and Ashton Dingler, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The State of Georgia; GA Div. of Family & Children Services; Dir. Bobby Cagle, DFCS; Fulton County Georgia, Family Court; and Cathelene Tina Robinson, Clerk, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02194-AT (N.D. Ga., June 14, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg. Georgia is a southeastern U.S. state whose terrain spans coastal beaches, farmland and mountains.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. GREYHOUND LINES: Faces National Federation Suit in N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greyhound Lines, Inc. The case is captioned as National Federation of the Blind, Greg DeWall, Ricardo Flores, Michael Hingson, Michael Richardson, and Tina Thomas, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. and FirstGroup America, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-03368-RS (N.D. Cal., June 12, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg. Greyhound Lines is an intercity bus common carrier serving over 3,800 destinations across North America.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy Ryan Elder, Esq. TRE LEGAL PRACTICE 4226 Castanos Street Fremont, CA 94536 Telephone: (410) 415 3493 Facsimile: (888) 718 0617 E-mail: telder@trelegal.com - and - Lisa Adrienne Ells, Esq. Michael S. Nunez, Esq. ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 433 6830 Facsimile: (415) 433 7104 E-mail: lells@rbgg.com mnunez@rbgg.com J CHOO USA: Wagner Appeals Ruling in "Wood" Suit to 11th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Interested Party Cynthia Wagner filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Kerri Wood v. J Choo USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 9:15-cv-81487-BB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, a would-be class member in a proposed class action accusing luxury shoe brand Jimmy Choo of printing sensitive data on credit card receipts has objected to a proposed $2.5 million settlement, complaining about the payouts to the named plaintiff and class counsel and raising questions about their motivations. Tennessee resident Cynthia Wagner filed an objection on March 17 in federal court in Miami seeking to upend the agreement reached by plaintiff Kerri C. Wood and J Choo USA Inc. to resolve Wood's potential nationwide class action. The appellate case is captioned as Kerri Wood v. J Choo USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-12578, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or before June 30, 2017, as to Appellant Cynthia Wagner; and -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before July 5, 2017, as to Appellee Kerri C. Wood.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee KERRI C. WOOD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Patrick Christopher Crotty, Esq. Sean Martin Holas, Esq. Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS PA 3800 S Ocean Dr., Suite 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: Scott@ScottDOwens.com - and - Steven R. Jaffe, Esq. Seth Lehrman, Esq. FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS & LEHMAN, PL 425 N Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: steve@pathtojustice.com seth@pathtojustice.com - and - Bret Leon Lusskin, Jr., Esq. BRET LUSSKIN PA 20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 302 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 454-5841 Facsimile: (954) 454-5844 E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com Interested Party-Appellant CYNTHIA WAGNER is represented by: Wallace Allen McDonald, Esq. LACY PRICE & WAGNER, PC 249 N Peters Rd., Suite 101 Knoxville, TN 37923 Telephone: (865) 246-0800 E-mail: amcdonald@lpwpc.com Defendant J CHOO USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, d.b.a. Jimmy Choo, is represented by: Mark R. Cheskin, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1835 Market St., 29th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 675-4664 E-mail: mark.cheskin@hoganlovells.com - and - James VanLandingham, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 600 Brickell Ave., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 459-6658 E-mail: james.vanlandingham@hoganlovells.com - and - Carol Ann Licko, Esq. STROOCK STROOCK & LAVAN, LLP 200 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-9395 JUNO: Drivers File Class Action Over False Ride-Hail App Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew J. Hawkins, writing for The Verge, reports that drivers filed a federal class action lawsuit against so-called "driver- friendly" ride-hail apps Gett and Juno, alleging contractual breaches, intentional misrepresentations, false and deceptive advertising, and stock fraud. When it first launched in New York City in April 2016, Juno positioned itself as the "anti-Uber," promising better earnings and equity in the company to drivers. Drivers flocked to the app, instantly catapulting Juno to the top tiers of ride-hailing in New York City. But after it was acquired by the Tel Aviv-based Gett for $200 million earlier this year, Juno nullified its equity program with drivers, promising payouts to some drivers who had accumulated shares with the company. But drivers say those payouts reflect a dramatic devaluation of their stock in the company, with some drivers receiving nothing for their shares and others being cashed out at less than 2 percent per share. In an email to drivers, Juno promised "a new cash incentive plan," but drivers say the damage has already been done. "I told people all the time that they should ride Juno," said Mohammed Siddique, one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, in a statement provided by his lawyer. "I would tell them that I had an ownership stake in the company. But it was all a sham. Juno needed us to get them going in New York City so they said and offered whatever it took to get us to come, knowing that they had no intention to live up to their end of the deal. As soon as someone put a big cash offer on the table, Juno forgot all about the drivers that got them there." Once Juno officially responds to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs will "move swiftly" to get a judge to approve their class action certification," attorney Mohammed Gangat told The Verge. Once that happens, the plaintiffs' lawyers can seek to recruit more drivers in the hopes of bolstering their case. Juno and Gett did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The lawsuit is proof that ride-hail companies pitching themselves as friendlier alternatives to Uber and Lyft are still not immune to much of the upheaval that has plagued those apps. Recently, the Independent Drivers Guild of New York filed a formal complaint against Gett and Juno with the Federal Trade Commission for misleading drivers with false claims about earnings. The FTC has made rulings relevant to the ride-hail industry, ordering Uber to pay $20 million to drivers to settle misleading claims about earnings and financing. [GN] K-MAC ENTERPRISES: Faces "Ash" Suit Under FLSA, Ark. Labor Law -------------------------------------------------------------- TONYA ASH, SOMER WILLIAMS and LAKEISHA TROTTER, Each Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, vs. K-MAC ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-385-DPM (E.D. Ark., June 9, 2017), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime compensation for all hours that Plaintiff and all others similarly situated worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Defendant K-Mac Enterprises, Inc. is a fast food eatery company headquartered in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Defendant employed each of the three named Plaintiffs at restaurants in Little Rock, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tonya Ash, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 KALEO PHARMA: Law Firm Seeks Individuals for EVZIO Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Frier Levitt on June 20 announced a search for individuals who purchased EVZIO and any entity that sponsored a health plan or prescription drug plan ("plan sponsor") that included EVZIO on its "formulary" for potential legal action. Kaleo Pharma ("Kaleo"), manufacturer of EVZIO, may have been artificially inflating the price of the device and causing purchasers and plan sponsors that reimburse for the device to substantially overpay. Frier Levitt is looking for individuals to serve as class action representatives and plan sponsors to serve as plaintiffs to bring a claim for damages against Kaleo and ultimately stop any practice that results in overpayment for this critical device or harms the intended beneficiaries of the device. Kaleo, a Virginia-based pharmaceutical company, manufactures EVZIO, the first and only FDA approved auto-injector in the administration of naloxone hydrochloride, which is used for emergency treatment of opioid overdose. Since 2014, the cost of the EVZIO injector has increased dramatically. In 2014, the price for a two pack of EVZIO was approximately $690. Today, the same two pack costs, in some cases, over $4,500. Depending on the circumstances, individuals and plan sponsors may have paid hundreds or even thousands of dollars more than they should have for a two pack of the device. Individuals that purchased EVZIO between 2014 and today may have claims against Kaleo for improper overpayment. Frier Levitt is looking to file a class action against Kaleo challenging the substantial spike in the price of EVZIO and is looking for patients to serve as class action representatives to bring a claim for damages against Kaleo. Upon success, class action representatives are not only compensated for their loss, but also receive payment for their service as a class action representative. Plan sponsors that paid for EVZIO between 2014 and today may also have claims against Kaleo for improper overpayment. Frier Levitt is looking for plan sponsors to serve as plaintiffs to bring a claim for damages against Kaleo. Frier Levitt is looking to take legal action against Kaleo challenging the substantial spike in the price of EVZIO. If you are a patient or plan sponsor that paid for EVZIO between 2014 and today, you are encouraged to contact attorney Lucas W. Morgan, Esq. at lmorgan@frierlevitt.com or (973) 618-1660. About Frier Levitt, LLC Frier Levitt -- http://www.FrierLevitt.com-- is a national boutique healthcare law firm. Its 27 healthcare attorneys include pharmacist-lawyers, class action attorneys, trial attorneys whose practice concentrates in Healthcare and Pharmacy law. [GN] KALOBIOS PHARMA: Ex-CEO Wins Dismissal of Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 5:15-cv-05841-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted Defendant Martin Shkreli's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Beginning in early January 2015, prior to the Class Period, KaloBios was under severe financial distress, and by mid-2015, the company's leadership began searching for other potential investors. On Nov. 5, 2015, KaloBios announced a 61% workforce reduction and the pursuit of strategic alternatives. By Nov. 9, 2015, KaloBios announced it was halting enrollment in its clinical studies, and on Nov. 13, 2015, KaloBios issued a press release stating that it would begin efforts to wind down its operations and liquidate its assets. As a result of this news, KaloBios's stock further declined, closing at $0.90 on Nov. 13, 2015. Between Nov. 10, 2015 and Nov. 24, 2015, Shkreli purchased 2,075,200 shares of KaloBios common stock on the open market, making him the largest shareholder of KaloBios, and prompting discussions with KaloBios' regarding possible direction for the company to continue in operation. Just prior to the Shkreli's purchase of the majority shares of KaloBios stock, between August and September 2015, reports of criminal investigations into Shkreli's management of Retrophin and MSMB Capital were published by mainstream news sources including The New York Times, Forbes and Newsweek. Nevertheless, by Nov. 19, 2105, KaloBios' Board had accepted Shkreli's financing proposal and appointed him as CEO. The existing Board then resigned. After Shkreli was appointed as CEO, he made a number of public statements regarding KaloBios' strong potential and positive progress, as well statements regarding his efforts to turn the company around financially and why he was qualified to be the CEO. However, on Dec. 17, 2015, Shkreli was arrested for alleged misconduct at his previous company. Shkreli was immediately terminated as CEO. When the news of Shkreli's arrest broke, KaloBios stock price fell dramatically, plummeting 53% in pre-open trading before NASDAQ halted all trading so it could request more information from KaloBios. Soon thereafter on Dec. 24, 2015, NASDAQ announced that KaloBios's stock would be delisted, and on Dec. 29, 2016, KaloBios filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Trading resumed on Jan. 13, 2016. This is a federal securities class action brought by purchasers of KaloBios common stock between the Class Period of Nov. 19, 2015 and Dec. 16, 2015 against KaloBios and individuals Ronald Martell, and Herb Cross, and Shkreli, alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Defendants KaloBios, Martell, and Cross reached a partial settlement with the Plaintiffs, which the Court granted final approval of concurrently with the entry of the order. Accordingly, Defendant Shkreli remains the sole non- settling defendant in this case. The Plaintiffs allegations against Shkreli fall into two general categories: (i) reputation and qualification allegations, asserting that Shkreli mislead investors regarding his reputation and qualifications to lead KaloBios by failing to disclose his alleged misconduct at Retrophin and MSMB, and through affirmative misstatements about his business experience, credibility, and trustworthiness; and (ii) KaloBios recovery and success allegations, asserting that Shkreli misled investors through unrealistic statements touting KaloBios' financial recovery, advancement potential and operational successes. Presently before the Court is Shkreli's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and for failure to plead claims with the requisite level of particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. In light of the significant publicity garnered by the criminal investigation and related accusations of misconduct prior to Shkreli's arrest on Dec. 17, 2015, the Court agrees that the market was aware of the information the Plaintiffs accuse Shkreli of withholding or misrepresenting before any corrective disclosure occurred. Consequently, while a "truth-on-the-market" defense is a heavy burden at this stage of proceedings, the Court finds that Shkreli has met that burden and rebutted the fraud-on-the-market presumption relied on by the Plaintiffs. Absent this presumption, the Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead reliance. Therefore, the Court granted Shkreli's motion to dismiss as to claims based on the alleged reputation and qualification statements or omissions. The second category of statements the Plaintiffs identify as false and misleading concern more specific representations regarding KaloBios' financial recovery, advancement potential and operational successes. They contend that these representations were so unrealistic in light of Shkreli's prior misconduct that they amount to being knowingly false and misleading. While the Plaintiffs may be correct that the long-term success of KaloBios was unrealistic, the reality is that Shkreli was arrested before proof of this theory had an opportunity to come to light. Accordingly, the Court concluded that they have failed allege a sufficient factual basis for their allegations that the KaloBios recovery and success statements were false or misleading. Accordingly, the Court granted Shkreli's motion to dismiss with respect to claims these statements as well. For these reasons, Shkreli's Motion to Dismiss is granted. All claims are dismissed with leave to amend. Any amended complaint must be filed on or before July 21, 2017. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/UssIKT from Leagle.com. Kang Li, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Kang Li, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley F. Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Lionel Z. Glanc -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Robert S. Green, Green & Noblin, P.C.. Kaniz Fatema, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Matthew Laurence Tuccillo -- mltuccillo@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP. Zeke Ingram, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP, Matthew Laurence Tuccillo, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP. Bhaskar R. Gudlavenkatasiva, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP, Matthew Laurence Tuccillo, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Marc Ian Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Abuhena M. Saifulislam, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP & Matthew Laurence Tuccillo, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice. Christopher Massad, Plaintiff, represented by Robert S. Green -- Green & Noblin, P.C.. Austin Isensee, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP & Matthew Laurence Tuccillo, Pomerantz LLP. KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael J. Shepard -- michael.shepard@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP & Stacy R. Hovan -- stacy.hovan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP. Martin Shkreli, Defendant, represented by Keith I. Chrestionson -- kchrestionson@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP, Peter C. Buckley -- PCBuckley@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild, pro hac vice, Scott L. Vernick -- svernick@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP, pro hac vice & William Stassen -- svernick@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP, pro hac vice. Ronald Martell, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Ann Ebling -- jebling@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West, Susan Samuels Muck, Fenwick & West LLP & Jennifer Corinne Bretan -- jbretan@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP. Ernso Auguste, Movant, represented by Avraham Noam Wagner -- avi@thewagnerfirm.com -- The Wagner Firm. David Borges, Movant, represented by Adam Christopher McCall -- amccall@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP. Javier Marte, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Ming Wang, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Jing-Wei Wang, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Yi Wang, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. KING.COM: Court Allows Candy Crush Class Action to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------- Jillian Burstein, Esq. -- jburstein@reedsmith.com -- and Jason Gordon, Esq. -- jgordon@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that a class action lawsuit against the developer of Candy Crush will continue in Illinois federal court. According to the complaint, Candy Crush, a popular mobile game, entices users into sharing the game with Facebook friends in exchange for free "lives" (or plays) only to have those lives promptly deleted. The plaintiffs allege that the lives are valued at $0.20 each. The court rejected Candy Crush's argument that failing to receive free lives does not constitute an "injury in fact," and permitted breach of contract, unjust enrichment and state consumer protection claims to proceed. The plaintiff will, however, need to identify individuals who've lost free lives outside of Illinois in order for claims under any other state's consumer protection laws to proceed. The Court dismissed the remaining claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Takeaway: Companies that offer virtual items, plays, currency, skins, or other digital benefits to game players should pay special attention to this case, as it may suggest that game publishers are required to provide such items (even those with a nominal value) to players in the future. [GN] KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Court Denies Change of Venue in "Martinez" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ROBERT MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., a corporation, dba ARIZONA KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, No. 1:16-cv-01730-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the Defendant's motion for change of venue. On Sept. 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in Tulare County Superior Court against Defendant Knight. On Nov. 14, 2016, the latter removed the action to this federal court based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges the following seven claims against defendant Knight: (i) failure to provide meal breaks in violation of California Labor Code Section 226; (ii) failure to separately pay for non-productive work and rest breaks in violation of Labor Code Section 1194; (iii) failure to pay missed rest break premiums under Labor Code Section 226.7; (iv) failure to provide accurate wage statements under Labor Code Section 226; (v) failure to pay wages due at termination under Labor Code Sections 201-203; (vi) unfair business practices under the California Business and Professionals Code Section 17200; and (vii) a claim for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), Labor Code Section 2699, et seq. (Doc. No. 2-1 at 8.) The Plaintiff worked for Defendant Knight from September 2015 through March 2016. During that time, he and similarly situated employees were not provided with off-duty meal breaks; authorized or permitted to take off-duty rest breaks; paid premium pay for missed meal and rest breaks; or paid separate and hourly wages for non-driving work tasks, and for rest breaks taken while driving routes in California. He and similarly situated employees also did not receive all wages due to them upon separation from employment. The Plaintiff has proposed this following class: All current and former truck drivers employed by Defendant Knight and who drove one or more routes of five hours or more within California for the Defendant during either the Non-California Resident Class Period (for Non-California residents) or during the California Class Period (for California residents). The California resident Class Period runs from Aug. 7, 2015, through the date of trial, and the non-California resident Class Period runs from four years prior to the date of the filing of this complaint through the present. On March 21, 2017, Defendant Knight filed a motion to change venue, seeking transfer of this action to the District of Arizona on the basis that the Plaintiff could have brought the action in Arizona, and that transfer will promote convenience and fairness. In his opposition to the pending motion filed on April 4, 2017, the Plaintiff disputes only the convenience and fairness of the transfer sought by the Defendant. The Defendant filed a reply on April 25, 2017. At the May 2, 2017 hearing, the Court directed the parties to file additional briefing clarifying their positions as to the impact of a recent class action settlement in a separate litigation involving defendant upon resolution of the pending motion. The Plaintiff filed his supplemental brief on May 8, 2017, and the Defendant filed its brief on May 12, 2017. The Court concludes that the balance of the factors described weighs against transfer of this action to the District of Arizona. The Plaintiff has chosen to litigate this action in the Eastern District of California; brings California law claims based on factual allegations that took place within California; and seeks to represent a class of employees who worked within the state. In light of these factors, the Court is not persuaded that considerations of witness convenience or ease of evidentiary access justify the transfer of this action. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant's motion to change venue. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/oCRbmq from Leagle.com. Robert Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Justin Ackermann -- cja@ackermanntilajef.com -- Ackermann & Tilajef, PC. Robert Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Julian Ari Hammond -- jhammond@hammondlawpc.com -- HammondLaw P.C.. Knight Transportation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael J. Hui -- mhui@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Richard H. Rahm -- rrahm@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Kai-Ching Cha -- kcha@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.. KONA GRILL: Cedeno Moves to Certify Class of Sous Chefs, Others --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MIGUEL CEDENO Individually, and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Who Consent to Their Inclusion in a Collective Action v. KONA GRILL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and KONA MACADAMIA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 8:17-cv-01039-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), moves the Court to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action and to order notice to be sent to members of a class of: all current and former employees of Kona Grill, Inc. after June 1, 2014, who worked overtime but were not paid overtime wages, and who held the following positions: sous chef, assistant general manager of restaurant, assistant manager of restaurant, site development manager, lease administrator, development procurement manager, facilities manager, purchasing/facilities coordinator, project designer, manager of architecture, accounts payable manager, accountant, senior manager of tax, manager of IT, senior tax analyst, marketing manager, marketing coordinator, applications system support analyst, recruiter, training manager, and training coordinator. Mr. Cedeno also asks the Court to direct Kona Grill and Kona Macadamia to provide his counsel with the last known addresses of all putative class members and the telephone number, date of birth, and last four digits of the social security number of any potential class members, whose notice is returned by the post office, so that the counsel may provide effective notice to the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ujH7QxKo The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Castellano, II, Esq. BUCKMAN & BUCKMAN, P.A. 2023 Constitution Blvd. Sarasota, FL 34231 Telephone: (941) 923-7700 Facsimile: (941) 923-7736 E-mail: nick@buckmanandbuckman.com The Defendants are represented by: Laura E. Prather, Esq. Andrew Lincoln, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, PC Wells Fargo Center 100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 2200 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 512-3225 E-mail: laura.prather@jacksonlewis.com andrew.lincoln@jacksonlewis.com KUEHNE NAGEL: "Scott" Suit Moved to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Charles Scott, an individual, and all others similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. Kuehne Nagel Inc., an unknown business entity, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS1707477, was removed on June 12, 2017 from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District Of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv- 01147-JGB-KK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal. Kuehne Nagel is a global transportation and logistics company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE PC 410 West Arden Avenue Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265 1020 Facsimile: (818) 265 1021 E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com Attorney for Kuehne Nagel Inc. Michelle McCoy Wolfe, Esq. VARNER AND BRANDT LLP 3750 University Avenue Suite 610 Riverside, CA 92501 Telephone: (951) 274 7777 Facsimile: (951) 274 7770 E-mail: michelle.wolfe@varnerbrandt.com LOS ANGELES, CA: 9th Cir. Reverses 30-Day Impound Ruling -------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision holding that the 30-day impound is a valid administrative penalty in the case captioned, LAMYA BREWSTER, individually and as class representative, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLIE BECK, Chief, individual and official capacity; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation; CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, a public entity, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15- 55479 (9th Cir.). Lamya Brewster loaned her vehicle to Yonnie Percy, her brother-in- law. Percy was stopped by Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers who learned that Percy's driver's license was suspended. The officers then seized the vehicle under California Vehicle Code section 14602.6(a)(1), which authorizes impounding a vehicle when the driver has a suspended license. Brewster filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 on behalf of all vehicle owners whose vehicles were subjected to the 30-day impound. The complaint alleges that the 30-day impound is a warrantless seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment. The district court concluded that the 30-day impound is a valid administrative penalty and granted motion to dismiss. On appeal, Brewster claims only that the 30-day impound violates the Fourth Amendment. In an Opinion dated June 21, 2017, available at https://is.gd/AH5FXY from Leagle.com, the Ninth Circuit held that the 30-day impound of Brewster's vehicle constituted a seizure that required compliance with the Fourth Amendment. The Appellees argue that this result frustrates the state legislature's intent to impose a penalty on unlicensed drivers. The Ninth Circuit said it has no occasion to decide whether this objective is lawful. The Ninth Circuit held that police could impound a vehicle under section 22651(p), which authorizes impoundment when the driver doesn't have a valid license. Section 22651(p) doesn't have a mandatory 30-day hold period, thus avoiding the Fourth Amendment problem presented by section 14602.6(a). Lamya Brewster is represented by Barrett S. Litt, Esq. -- blitt@kmbllaw.com -- KAYE MCLANE BEDNARSKI & LITT -- Paul Hoffman, Esq. -- Hoffpaul@aol.com -- and -- Catherine Sweetser, Esq. -- catherine.sdshhh@gmail.com -- SCHONBRUN DE SIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP LAPD is represented by Gabriel S. Dermer, Esq. -- gabriel.dermer@lacity.org -- Adena M. Hopenstand, Esq. -- adena.hopenstand@lacity.org -- and -- Ronald S. Whitaker, Esq. -- ronald.whitaker@lacity.org -- LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY MACQUARIE GROUP: Sued Over Cleveland Mining Stock Price Inflation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Houston and Chris Vedelago, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, report that Macquarie Group faces a major class action over allegations some of its investment advisers artificially inflated the price of a small mining company before a sudden collapse wiped out many of its investors. The investment bank's brokers are accused of deliberately "ramping" stock in Cleveland Mining Group by playing a key role in the acquisition of a Brazilian iron-ore mine project with a potential value of $34 billion that turned out to be a worthless patch of jungle. Many investors were long-term friends of the Macquarie advisers, but they now claim they were duped by assurances the speculative stock would deliver massive financial returns. The bank, known as the "millionaires' factory", is facing legal action on several fronts, with a series of explosive claims referred to the corporate regulator last month. The country's largest investment bank is bracing for another scandal at a time when its stockbroking arm has only recently emerged from an enforceable undertaking order from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) over its "systemic deficiencies" in compliance with financial services laws. Cleveland Mining Group managing director David Mendelawitz has taken the extraordinary step of complaining about the advisers' conduct to ASIC. In a letter to ASIC obtained by Fairfax Media, he raises specific concerns about the three Macquarie employees based on information collected during a two-year private investigation funded by a major shareholder. Macquarie has been aware of many of the claims for more than a year, after civil action was begun by a Ballarat businessman who lost about $4 million investing in Cleveland. The allegations have also rippled around the bayside suburb of Brighton, where dozens of locals were burnt after buying into Cleveland on the advice of two former Macquarie directors who lived in the area. Clients were recruited at primary school functions, dinner parties or while cycling down Beach Road. Another divisional director at Macquarie, who has since left the bank, also pushed the stock aggressively among his network of wealthy investors. For most of 2011, Cleveland stock hovered around 35õ, but the Macquarie advisers assured potential investors it was destined to reach $1.20. Many jumped aboard, and encouraged friends to do the same. They appeared oblivious to the fact Cleveland was a highly speculative stock that began with a market capitalisation of just $20 million -- less than some of the real estate along Brighton's golden mile. Propelled by a string of positive announcements, Cleveland's share price almost tripled between March and April 2012, as investors contemplated a massive windfall. Their dreams were fleeting; the share price collapsed in late 2012. The stock, which was voluntarily suspended from the ASX in October 2016, last traded at just 7 cents. Risks 'understood' Macquarie is expected to argue its clients were "professional" or "sophisticated" investors, who should have understood the implicit risks of buying shares in a mining company that had never produced an ounce of anything valuable. But several victims of the rout told Fairfax Media the stock was artificially inflated. In stockbroking parlance, they claim it was a classic "pump and dump", where stock is purchased at a low price before the release of positive and often misleading company announcements, which are often promulgated on social media, on online forums, or by word- of-mouth. Based in Perth, Cleveland was founded in 2009 by several former executives from Fortescue Metals Group, with ambitions of becoming a mid-tier gold producer. Mr Mendelawitz, who spent five years as Fortescue Metals' business improvement manager before joining Cleveland, told the media in 2010 that he would assess "a pipeline of prospective projects based on stringent economic criteria rather than hype". In December that year, Mr Mendelawitz engaged Macquarie Equities Ltd to raise $4.64 million in funding for several offshore projects, including the Premier Gold Mine in Brazil. Mr Mendelawitz told Fairfax Media he felt like he had joined an exclusive club when he signed the agreement with Macquarie. In September 2011, Stefan Whiting, then a Macquarie investment adviser, became involved in a contentious deal that super-charged Cleveland's share price but ultimately contributed to its collapse. Lost in the Amazon Emails obtained by Fairfax Media show Mr Whiting acted as an intermediary in the sale of a separate Brazilian iron ore mine to Cleveland. His role in the transaction appears to have been a serious breach of his conflict-of-interest obligations, and would have given him access to potentially price-sensitive information. Mr Whiting even asked Cleveland for an "introduction fee", outside his remuneration package with Macquarie. "All we need is confirmation of a [sic] introduction fee of 1.5 per cent on purchase price plus the NDA [non-disclosure agreement]. This will give access to geo [geological] reports and data room info," Mr Whiting said in an email on September 7, 2011. When Mr Mendelawitz refused, Mr Whiting claimed it was a joke. It was not the only time Mr Whiting would request a commission. On December 20, 2012, Mr Whiting sent an invoice to Cleveland asking for a $12,500 commission for "corporate services". According to preliminary core samples, the mine known as Ferradura was expected to deliver more than 10 billion tons of iron ore at a time when Australia was struggling to keep pace with demand in China. One initial report provided by an independent source valued the tenement, in the northern Brazilian state of Amapa, at $34 billion. Hot property? As the Ferradura deal was being negotiated, a series of mysterious posts began appearing on Hot Copper -- an online forum where traders swap tips, information and, sometimes, baseless rumours. Numerous comments posted by "Troutfish007" revealed extraordinary insight for someone claiming to be "new to this game". Several of Troutfish007's posts preceded announcements by Cleveland to the Australian Stock Exchange. Fairfax Media does not suggest Macquarie or its advisers had any involvement with the posts by Troutfish007, but the comments appeared to be part of a broader campaign to spruik Cleveland stock. In the six months after Mr Whiting introduced the Ferradura project to Cleveland in September 2011, Macquarie's then divisional director, Michael Rosenbaum, and another Macquarie adviser made more than 20 trades in Cleveland in the names of companies registered to them or family members. Most of the trading was done by Mr Rosenbaum in two companies owned by a relative. On February 23, 2012, Cleveland announced to the ASX it had signed a memorandum of understanding to purchase the Brazilian mine. Stock climbs The stock began to climb in the following weeks, leading to a trading frenzy that briefly piqued the interest of the ASX, which queried why the price had soared from 54õ on March 19 to 76õ just four days later. "The company does not have any other explanation for the price change and the increase in volume in securities traded in the company," Cleveland's finance director Aaron Finlay told the ASX. As the share price surged, "Troutfish007" posted on Hot Copper on March 27: "I expect some consolidation around 67-70, and then more progress the next week. Any additional positive news and the magical $1 mark you speak of will be seriously tested. These Fortescue Metals boys don't mess about. Happy holding." On April 2, 2012, another investment adviser at Macquarie purchased 50,000 Cleveland shares through a privately owned company. On April 3, 2012, Troutfish007 again demonstrated extraordinary prescience in another post on Hot Copper. "I believe [sic] something big is about to happen, due to the big run we've had, but I'm really not certain about pinpointing where the catalyst is lying with Cleveland. Perhaps there's good news on all fronts . . . but, I have a feeling it's down to one project . . . just not sure which." A day later, on April 4, Cleveland announced that drilling would begin at another of its Brazilian mines, Porto Grande. The stock price peaked at 95õ on April 10 and the Macquarie insider began to sell down his holding of about 400,000 shares on April 13. Cleveland had become a self-fulfilling prophecy, propelled by hype and misinformation rather than any apparent improvement to the underlying business. Tight control Behind the scenes, Mr Whiting and Mr Rosenbaum maintained tight control of anyone with a significant stake in the company. Mr Rosenbaum regularly contacted a Cleveland insider, asking for information from the company's share register about the identity of sellers. "Can we see who sold yesterday," Mr Rosenbaum said in an email on September 28, 2011. "Yep" was the immediate response. In another email on November 15, 2011, Mr Rosenbaum tells his source at Cleveland: "40 cents, only three dollars to go." Almost a year later, on September 7, 2012, Mr Rosenbaum appeared to be still attempting to prop up the share price. "Cleaned out all selling, onward and up," he said in an email. When clients wanted to sell Cleveland stock or "take profit", Mr Whiting often intervened and urged them to hold, or buy more. One client set up an online trading account after Mr Whiting repeatedly refused to sell his stock. "We used to ride together, we were mates I guess. He refused my requests to sell on two occasions. He said he couldn't do it, as a mate. When I realised it was all bullshit, I transferred to an online trading account and sold the lot," said the former friend of Mr Whiting, who lost about $31,000 on Cleveland trades. Two investors told Fairfax Media that Mr Whiting purchased Cleveland stock in their accounts, without their knowledge or consent. Selling staunched Even as doubts emerged over the Ferradura project, Mr Whiting continued to hawk Cleveland and staunch any selling that would potentially put downward pressure on the stock price. In an email to a former friend, Mr Whiting offered to personally buy the man's shares if he wanted to sell. "We have spent the last two weeks in South America with the company and are completely comfortable with the CDG story ... If you want to sell or know anyone who does, ask them to call me and we will arrange to buy their stock," Mr Whiting said in a message on October 25, 2012. Eventually, and perhaps belatedly, Mr Mendelawitz became worried about the direction of his company and the steep trajectory of its share price. "They were trying to keep it as tight as possible. They controlled the registry, so if anyone was selling they could get in and buy straight away. We weren't complaining because the price was going up, but I was very concerned about whether we could support the valuations," he said. Tensions boil over On a second trip to the Ferradura project in Brazil in October 2012, tensions finally boiled over amid growing concerns about the credibility of the initial core samples following a site visit. A flurry of large sell orders suddenly destabilised the stock and the price dipped to mid-40õ. Mr Rosenbaum and Mr Whiting denied any knowledge about who was responsible for dumping the stock, according to Mr Mendelawitz. While staying at the St Moritz Hotel in Brasilia, Mr Mendelawitz received information from Australia about the identity of the seller. It was a prominent Melbourne businessman who also happened to be a client of Mr Rosenbaum. Mr Mendelawitz claims that a tearful Mr Rosenbaum admitted during a confrontation on the hotel's rooftop terrace that he was behind the sell orders. "He basically broke down. He said his client had to sell because he needed the money. He promised to get his life in order and promised he could still get the stock to $1.20," Mr Mendelawitz said. Project worthless But the company was about to receive disastrous news - the Ferradura project that had generated so much buzz was confirmed as a worthless dud. Concerns had first been raised by Cleveland director Jim Williams, who warned other directors in a July 2012 email: "There may not be any economic ore at Ferradura." A report almost a year later confirmed his fears. Cleveland had been misled, and the initial core samples that indicated a motherlode of iron ore were wrong, amid claims they had been fabricated. In an internal email, questions were also asked about the adequacy of the due diligence undertaken by Cleveland, and why problems had not been identified before the acquisition. If the research reports had been falsified, it had nothing to do with Macquarie. The investment bank and its executives had no knowledge or involvement in the preparation of the allegedly fraudulent mining reports. Shares plummet By December 2012, the share price had plummeted back to around 30õ. The fall continued over the following years, finally closing at 7õ when the company requested a suspension from the ASX. Mr Whiting appears to have made a significant loss on his private holding of Cleveland bought by his company Fishin Chips Pty Ltd after selling his holding of 300,000 shares between February and July 2013. At least one major Cleveland shareholder claims he was urged to hold or buy more stock by Mr Whiting, who was offloading his shares at the same time. The Ferradura project was officially declared dead by late 2013. "The historical information [about the quality of the mine] was found to be largely unreliable and shaft digging showed only minor potential for the project," the annual report said. Mr Whiting left the stockbroking industry in 2013, while Mr Rosenbaum moved to a rival firm that same year. The other investment adviser continues to work at Macquarie. None of the three bankers responded to questions about their conduct from Fairfax Media. All three have issued legal warnings to Fairfax Media via their lawyers. Macquarie is expected to again be in ASIC's crosshairs over the misconduct allegations levelled against some of its most senior staff. 'Utmost seriousness' A Macquarie spokeswoman said the bank would not comment on individual client matters or matters subject to litigation, but added that the allegations aired by Fairfax Media only "represent one side of a matter". Macquarie refused to answer a series of questions about the activities of its traders and their involvement with Cleveland. "Macquarie treats any allegations regarding inappropriate or potentially illegal behaviour with the utmost seriousness, regardless of their source. Where matters are raised, Macquarie conducts a thorough investigation and where appropriate, notifies relevant authorities," the spokeswoman said. In 2013, ASIC issued Macquarie with an enforceable undertaking after it was unable to demonstrate a reasonable basis for the advice it provided to hundreds of clients. The bank was forced to pay almost $25 million in compensation to about 260 clients. The latest misconduct allegations and prospect of another ASIC investigation into Macquarie's activities comes at an inconvenient time for the banking industry. After a string of damaging scandals over the past five years, the four big banks and Macquarie launched a campaign against the government's contentious plan to impose a levy. They have also attempted to persuade the government and ASIC that increased compliance or a royal commission would be overkill. Court looms But several Cleveland investors will not be waiting for the government or regulators to intervene. Lawyers for the Ballarat businessman, who lost $4 million following Macquarie's advice, began negotiating with the bank in April last year in a bid for compensation. A writ was lodged in the Supreme Court in January 2017, while a separate complaint is before the Financial Ombudsman Service. Macpherson Kelley Lawyers made contact with hundreds of Cleveland investors in preparation for a class action. Michael Hazell, from Macpherson Kelley Lawyers, confirmed the firm was acting on behalf of several clients "who have concerns about the financial advice provided by Macquarie in relations to Cleveland Mining". After losing about $30 million on the value of his personal stock, Mr Mendelawitz is still scrambling to save his company. He concedes he made mistakes. But he accuses Macquarie of turning a blind eye to the conduct of its investment advisers. "We thought we were covered, we had Macquarie Bank in our corner. But we didn't, we had a few blokes pumping up a stock and when their network ran out, it all fell over." [GN] MASSAPEQUA DINER: Accused by "Lamar" Class Suit of Violating FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDDY SANTOS LAMAR, individually and on behalf of those individuals similarly situated v. MASSAPEQUA DINER, INC., MASSAPEQUA REALTY, LLC, VALENTINO ZARBOUTIS, NIKOLAOS GLYKOS, "JOHN DOE #1", "JOHN DOE #2" AND "JOHN DOE #3", Case No. 2:17-cv-03386-DRH-AKT (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the New York State Department of Labor. Massapequa Diner, Inc., is a New York domestic business corporation operating a restaurant in Massapequa, New York. Massapequa Realty, LLC, is a New York domestic business corporation. The Individual Defendants are owners, part owners or principals of the Defendant Corporations. The Doe Defendants are unknown controlling and supervisory agents of the Defendant Corporations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Saul D. Zabell, Esq. ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. One Corporate Drive, Suite 103 Bohemia, NY 11716 Telephone: (631) 589-7242 Facsimile: (631) 563-7475 E-mail: SZabell@laborlawsny.com MAZOR ROBOTICS: Faces "Bergeron" Suit Over ISA Investigation ------------------------------------------------------------ NORMAND BERGERON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MAZOR ROBOTICS LTD., ORI HADOMI, ELIYAHU ZEHAVI, and SHARON LEVITA, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04387 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2017), alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was engaged in conduct that subjected it to the Israeli Securities Authority investigation; (2) that, as such the Company was exposed to potential liability; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Mazor's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On June 8, 2017, the Company disclosed that in May 2017, the ISA conducted a search at the offices of Mazor and questioned certain officers in connection with an investigation held by the ISA. On this news, the Company's American Depository Share price fell $3.70 per share, or 9.9%, to close at $33.67 per share on June 8, 2017. The next day, the share price continued to decline, falling another $3.08 per share, or 9.1%, to close at $30.59 per share on June 9, 2017. Mazor Robotics Ltd. is a medical device company that purportedly develops and markets innovative surgical guidance systems and complementary products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 682-5340 Fax: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160 MEARS TRANSPORTATION: Luxury Chauffeurs Join Wage Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that luxury chauffeurs for Mears Transportation have joined a lawsuit seeking at least $50 million in lost overtime wages and other expenses, saying Mears wrongly classifies the chauffeurs as independent contractors when they should be employees. The lawsuit identifies 40 plaintiffs as former or current Mears chauffeurs -- those who drive luxury vehicles such as Lincoln Town Cars to transport local executives and VIPs. The suit says Mears gives the luxury chauffeurs employee handbooks and business cards bearing the Mears logo and address; requires them to wear employee uniforms with name tags bearing the Mears logo; and drive fully insured and fueled company cars. "There is no credible basis for classifying the luxury chauffeurs as independent contractors, given the amount of control exerted over them on a daily basis," said plaintiffs' attorney Thomas Bundy, Esq. -- thomas.bundy@lawrencebundy.com -- of Lawrence & Bundy, which is based in Maryland. "Mears cannot credibly distinguish its contractor chauffeurs from its employee chauffeurs who perform virtually the same job for the same company in the same locations." Among the relief requested in the lawsuit is to pay luxury chauffeurs the same as Mears van and motor-coach drivers, which attorneys think is higher pay. Roger Chapin, spokesman for Mears, said on June 19 the company hasn't been served with the lawsuit and declines to comment on it. Mears, founded in 1939, has dominated the taxi industry in Orlando since Walt Disney World opened. It is the largest and one of the oldest taxi companies in the area. The suit comes as Mears is facing pressure from transportation- networking companies entering the market, such as Uber and Lyft, which use independent contractors. Uber and Lyft have also faced complaints about paying drivers as contractors, but that is the entire business model for them. In February, a Florida appellate court ruled that Uber driver Darrin McGillis was properly classified as an independent contractor. The lawsuit, which seeks federal class-action status, states that Mears intentionally misclassifies luxury chauffeurs as independent contractors "in a scheme to avoid paying minimum and overtime wages, employment taxes, and certain ordinary business expenses." Other than their technical classification, the chauffeurs go through much the same hiring and employment situations at the company, such as applying for work by submitting an employment application, going through an employee background check, participating in employee interviews and attending mandatory employee training, according to the lawsuit. According to Bundy, most of the luxury chauffeurs say they struggle to earn a living despite working 70 to 100 hours a week. The drivers allege in the lawsuit that they must pay Mears significant sums to operate Mears vehicles and drive Mears clients during shifts set by Mears. Bundy said Mears does not allow the chauffeurs to have a copy of their contract or allow them to remove it from the building. Sara Blackwell, a Sarasota attorney who handles class-action employment cases, said many employers classify workers as independent contractors because it's easier. She said she wasn't familiar with the Mears case. "When employers are classifying someone as an independent contractor, they need to be very careful, and I recommend they get independent counsel's opinion on it," Blackwell said. She said the court will likely look at similarities between the luxury chauffeurs and other Mears employees. Ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft are now aiming for pickup privileges for millions of travelers flying into Orlando International Airport, creating more competition for companies such as Mears. Up until now, Uber and Lyft have been limited to dropping off at the airport. In 2014, Mears was forced to acknowledge that it was delaying work on a new $20 million headquarters because of the uncertainty surrounding transportation networking. [GN] MIDLAND FUNDING: Status Hearing in "Janetos" Suit Set for Aug. 16 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Joan B. Gottschall entered an order in the lawsuit entitled Mary Janetos v. Midland Funding, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-04490 (N.D. Ill.), setting a status hearing for August 16, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. Judge Gottschall ordered that if, by the date of the scheduled status hearing, the Defendants have not been served, the 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. The Plaintiff is directed to advise the Defendant of the status hearing forthwith. In the interest of judicial economy, the Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied without prejudice, with the understanding that the Plaintiff's request for class certification remains pending as a placeholder and no rights are waived, according to the Order. The Plaintiff's motion to continue is denied as moot. 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. Judge Gottschall also directed the Parties are to discuss settlement of case, consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge, and a proposed discovery plan. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jk27F3XR MUTUAL SECURITIES: Milliner Seeks Certification of Clients Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CHARLOTTE B. MILLINER, as trustee of the Charlotte B. Milliner Trust dated January 30, 1997, and as owner and holder of the CHARLOTTE B. MILLINER SEP IRA; JOANNE BREM, as Trustee of the Van Santen-Brem Revocable Trust, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MUTUAL SECURITIES, INC., a California corporation, Case No. 3:15- cv-03354-TEH (N.D. Cal.), move the Court for an order certifying this class: All persons and entities who were clients of Mutual Securities, Inc. as their broker-dealer with Bock Evans Financial Counsel, Ltd. as their investment advisor during the period from July 21, 2011 through August 8, 2015. Plaintiffs Charlotte B. Milliner and Joanne Brem also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives and to appoint The Law Offices of David Sturgeon-Garcia as class counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on July 24, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Pa3hBmMb The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Sturgeon-Garcia, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID STURGEON-GARCIA 1042 Country Club Drive, Suite 1A Moraga, CA 94556 Telephone: (925) 235-7290 Facsimile: (925) 235-7319 E-mail: dsglaw@comcast.net NA PIZZA: Faces "Gibbons" Suit Alleging Inadequate Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER GIBBONS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. NA PIZZA, LLC d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S, AHMER GHAURI, and NAVEED REHMAN, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01769 (S.D. Tex., June 9, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff worked off the clock without pay, had time keeping techniques utilized against him wherein he was not adequately compensated for all hours worked, and/or were not paid the federal minimum wage. The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants own and operate Papa John's franchises. Plaintiff initially worked as a pizza delivery driver before being promoted to a manager.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com NEXVET BIOPHARMA: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ WeissLaw LLP on June 19 disclosed that a class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of shareholders of Nexvet Biopharma Public Limited Company ("Nexvet") (NASDAQ: NVET) seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed acquisition of Nexvet by Zoetis Inc. ("Zoetis"). On April 13, 2017, Nexvet and Zoetis issued a joint press releases announcing that they had entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which Zoetis would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Nexvet common stock for $6.72 in cash for each share of Nexvet common stock ("Proposed Transaction"). The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and all Nexvet shareholders. The plaintiff is represented by WeissLaw, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. The complaint alleges that in an attempt to secure shareholder approval for the merger, the defendants filed materially false and/or misleading statements with the SEC in violation of the Exchange Act. The omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be material to Nexvet shareholders' ability to make an informed decision whether to approve the Proposed Transaction. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than sixty days from June 19, 2017. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Joshua M. Rubin of WeissLaw at 888.593.4771, or by e-mail at stockinfo@weisslawllp.com. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. WeissLaw LLP -- http://www.weisslawllp.com-- has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary duties. [GN] NEW YORK, USA: Sued by Turano on Behalf of Medicaid Recipients -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIE TURANO, LEONARD TURANO and GEMMA SAMELE, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, Case No. 2:17-cv-03397-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2017), alleges that the Defendant failed to ensure that the Plaintiffs will have their home care benefits continued at their current level until and unless they receive a timely and adequate notice of their right to aid continuing. The Plaintiffs seek to represent Medicaid recipients, who have long-term illnesses and disabilities that make them dependent on long-term care services, including home care, in order to continue living in their homes in the community. The Plaintiffs contend that the proposed class members are now at risk of reductions or terminations of their care in violation of the Medicaid Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Howard Zucker is the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Beth Goldman, Esq. Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq. Elizabeth Jois, Esq. Ben Taylor, Esq. Stewart Dearing, Esq. NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 7 Hanover Square, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 613-5000 Facsimile: (212) 750-0820 E-mail: bgoldman@nylag.org jstevens@nylag.org ejois@nylag.org btaylor@nylag.org sdearing@nylag.org NICOLET RESTAURANT: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jimmy H. Koo, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court June 19 declined to review a class action over a Wisconsin restaurant's alleged failure to truncate the credit card expiration dates on customers' receipts (Meyers v. Nicolet Restaurant of De Pere, LLC , U.S., No. 16-01113, petition for certiorari denied 6/19/17). The petition sought high court review of the first federal appeals court case to address standing in a Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act case following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Spokeo v. Robins , 136 S.Ct. 1540. In December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that, although failure to truncate the expiration date is technically a violation of FACTA, plaintiff Jeremy Meyers didn't have standing because he failed show that he was actually harmed or that the violation created any risk of harm. Under Spokeo, the appeals court said, Mr. Meyers needed to show a "concrete and particularized" injury that is "actual or imminent, not conjectual or hypothetical." Mr. Meyers was represented by Zimmerman Law Offices PC. Nicolet Restaurant was represented by Nash, Spindler, Grimstad & McCracken LLP. [GN] PACIFIC COAST: "Serrano" Suit Moved to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Maria Serrano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pacific Coast Feather Cushion Co., a corporation; and Pacific Coast Feather Company, a corporation; Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. BC659563, was removed on July 14, 2017 from the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Central District Of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv- 04414-DMG-JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee. Pacific Coast manufactures natural fill upholstery cushions. The company was incorporated in 1991 and is based in Pico Rivera, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ali Sarah Carlsen, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379 6250 Facsimile: (949) 379 6251 E-mail: acarlsen@aegislawfirm.com - and - Jessica L Campbell, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel A Wong, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379 6250 Facsimile: (949) 379 6251 E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com khaque@aegislawfirm.com swong@aegislawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel Y Zohar, Esq. Todd M Foreman, Esq. ZOHAR LAW FIRM PC 601 South Figueroa Street Suite 2675 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689 1300 Facsimile: (213) 689 1305 E-mail: dzohar@zoharlawfirm.com tforeman@zoharlawfirm.com PATCO ELECTRICAL: Class of Apprentice Certified in "Roberts" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Vicki Miles-LaGrange grants in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification in the lawsuit titled KYLE R. ROBERTS AND JOHNY L. SMITH, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. PATCO Electrical Services, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-00720-M (W.D. Okla.), as follows: (A) The Court conditionally certifies the following class: all current and former apprentice electricians who worked at the Calumet facility any time from June 24, 2013 to the present; (B) The Court orders the parties to confer and present to the Court an agreed notice to potential collective action members and consent form within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. If the parties cannot agree on all terms, the parties are directed to file with the Court within twenty (20) days of this Order a notice setting forth those terms to which the parties do agree and each party's proposed term(s) for those term(s) on which the parties have been unable to reach an agreement; (C) The Court orders PATCO to produce to plaintiff within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order a list of names, addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses for each member of the modified putative class; and (D) The Court finds that the opt-in period to participate in this action shall last for sixty (60) days from the date PATCO discloses the names and information of all putative class members. The Plaintiffs filed the action to recover alleged unpaid compensation from PATCO on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that PATCO only paid them overtime compensation for the hours they worked in excess of 50 hours per week. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LzdfUiWI PFIZER: Motion to Remand Lipitor Class Action to State Court OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Myers, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney has granted plaintiffs' motion to remand their claims against a global pharmaceutical company to a state court after the defendant had removed it to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. The order issued May 23 by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California explains that the goal of consolidating mass actions in federal court under CAFA is to preserve judicial resources and to reduce the odds of creating inconsistencies from similar lawsuits with judicially different rulings. The dispute began on Aug. 16, 2013, when three plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Judicial Council to have their individual cases coordinated into a Joint Council Coordinated Proceeding (JJCP). The complaint alleges that the pharmaceutical product Lipitor, made by Pfizer and distributed by McKesson Corp., gave the defendants Type 2 diabetes. On Sept. 25, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended petition adding 21 plaintiffs more to the complaint. The next phase of the dispute began on Dec. 6, 2013, when the CJC granted the request for coordination and created a Joint Council Coordinated Proceeding (JCCP) with the special title of "Lipitor Cases." However, as of May 23, only 65 plaintiffs have joined the mass class action. By Feb. 24, 2014, the plaintiffs made the case that at one point in time, there were at least 54 cases concerning similar effects of Lipitor filed in California that encompassed 1,855 plaintiffs. The plaintiffs went on to explain that they were in contact with other lawyers who were poised to also join the class action. However, by June 2014 the majority of these plaintiffs had not consented to join the class action and therefore the case had not reached the necessary number of plaintiffs to be eligible for federal court, because, as the court noted, the requirements for CAFA are very narrow. Carney argued that the court could not assume the that the remaining necessary number of plaintiffs would join the class action to push the complaint over the minimum number of participants needed for the case to qualify for CAFA Court. "The plaintiffs who are not yet part of the JCCP could have many legitimate reasons for not wanting a joint federal trial," according to the court order. "For example, some plaintiffs might seek to distance themselves from those with seemingly weaker claims or from those who will be preoccupied with defenses unique to them." Because the necessary number of plaintiffs were not willing to join the dispute, Judge Carney issued an order to move the lawsuit back to state court. Meanwhile, the remaining lawsuits have been divided among four different federal courts in the state of California. [GN] PRECOR INC: Class Action Over Treadmill Sensors Can Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that exercise equipment manufacturer Precor failed in its quest to get a judge to scuttle a federal class action complaint, which alleged the company sold treadmills it knew included inaccurate heart rate sensors. In an opinion issued June 16 in Chicago, Judge Harry D. Leinenweber denied a motion Precor, Inc., filed to ask him to reconsider his March certification of a class action brought against the company by plaintiffs Gary Mednick and Steven Bayer. Judge Leinenweber noted his certification was limited as he allowed the case to proceed only for the purpose of determining liability, reserving issues related to damages for individual hearings. He called that a "hard won" victory for the plaintiffs, noting they "significantly narrowed the proposed class" after he refused to certify the initial broad proposal in June 2016. In response, Mr. Mednick and Bayer dropped a warranty claim, halved the number of states for which they sought warranty fraud claims from 10 to five and narrowed the focus on Precor products to nine models of treadmills, rather than also including ellipticals and stationary bicycles in their claims. Remaining was a "pure consumer fraud action" alleging Precor marketed its treadmills deceptively, the judge said. With the lawsuit focusing only on graphics on the nine treadmills in question and whether Precor knowingly kept information from customers that might have influenced purchasing decisions, "plaintiffs could carry their burden to show proximate causation with classwide proof," Judge Leinenweber wrote. Precor moved for reconsideration, asserting "multiple manifest errors of law," but Judge Leinenweber noted "no such motion exists under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." He further explained the company did not allege new facts, stressing the touch sensors perform differently based on a user's individual physiology. He noted Precor's own testimony acknowledged a majority of users experience inaccurate reading, and said the company's language implying sensors work "whether you walk or run" negates its contention a class action is inappropriate because "the type and intensity of the exercise performed" affects accuracy. Judge Leinenweber further explained the complaint included reports of testing the two sensor systems in all the accused products, which keeps Precor from claiming "the heart rate system included in the machine" determined results. "Given the court's prior disposal of the issue, Precor cannot raise the same argument yet again and hope for a different result," Judge Leinenweber wrote. The only new information Precor offered, he added, seems to be an attempt "to discredit its own expert's study" by pointing to minimal warranty claims rather than product testing data showing a majority of users could not get the sensors to function properly. However, even Bayer noted he didn't file a warranty claim, but testified his monitor didn't work. Judge Leinenweber also restated his earlier opinion that human error involved in faulty sensor readings "is neither idiosyncratic nor due to human failings alone," pointing to a study in which participants given instructions still failed to get accurate figures. Precor also repeated its argument the complaint is flawed because it calls for the court to assume all who bought the treadmills did so based on perceived sensor accuracy. But Judge Leinenweber explained the customers alleged Precor sold a flawed product, meaning the packaging would likely mislead any consumer. Finally, Judge Leinenweber addressed damages, writing the issue of whether plaintiffs seek full or partial refunds is not sufficient to undercut a class action, but something that can be proved during the merits stage of the case -- granting Precor a window to challenge the final damages model. Precor is defended in the action by attorneys with the firms of Seyfarth Shaw, of Chicago, and Key & Associates, of Chicago. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from the firms of Siprut P.C., of Chicago; Lite Depalma Greenberg LLC, of Newark, N.J. and Chicago; Gordon Law Offices Ltd., of Chicago; and Maurice Wutscher LLP, of Chicago. [GN] PREMIER DERMATOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Texts -------------------------------------------------------------- Louie Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a Yorkville couple has filed a class-action lawsuit against Premier Dermatology and Forefront Dermatology, alleging violation of telephone harassment statutes. Kimberly Smith and Steve Smith filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on May 17 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the defendants alleging they sent unwanted text messages to the plaintiffs. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that, in 2016, they received unwanted text messages pitching dermatology products and services. The plaintiffs hold Premier Dermatology and Forefront Dermatology responsible because the defendants allegedly continued to send unsolicited text messages to the plaintiffs despite their requests to stop, not allowing them to opt out of receiving the notifications, for which they may have been charged. The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek $500 in statutory damages, injunctive relief, $1,500 in treble damages and any further relief this court grants. They are represented by Jeffrey M. Salas -- jsalas@salaswang.com -- of Salas Wang LLC in Chicago. [GN] U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois case number 1:17-cv-03712 PUTNAM INVESTMENT: Court Dismisses Remaining Claims in ERISA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William G. Young of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered judgment for the Defendants on all remaining counts in the case captioned, JOHN BROTHERSTON and JOAN GLANCY, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Putnam Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs, v. PUTNAM INVESTMENTS, LLC, PUTNAM INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, PUNTNAM INVESTOR SERVICES, INC., the PUTNAM BENEFITS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, the PUTNAM BENEFITS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, and ROBERT REYNOLDS, Defendants, Case No. 17-md-02777- EMC (D. Mass.). On November 13, 2015, John Brotherston (Brotherston) and Joan Glancy (Glancy), individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons and the Putnam Retirement Plan (Plan) (collectively, the Plaintiffs), brought the class action under section 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001-1461, against the Plan's fiduciaries: Putnam Investments, LLC, Putnam Investment Management, LLC, Putnam Investor Services, Inc., the Putnam Benefits Investment Committee, the Putnam Benefits Oversight Committee, and Putnam's Chief Executive Officer Robert Reynolds (collectively, the Defendants), for breach of the fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a) (1) (A)-(B) (count I), prohibited transactions with a party in interest in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1106(a) (1) (count II), prohibited transactions with a fiduciary in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1106(b) (count III), failure to monitor in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1109(a) (count IV), and other equitable relief based on ill-gotten proceeds under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a) (3) (count V). On March 30, 2017, the Court entered judgment for the Defendants on counts II and III. A bench trial on the remaining counts commenced before the Court on April 7, 2017. Upon the conclusion of the Plaintiffs' final witness, the Defendants moved for judgment on partial findings pursuant to Rule 52(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In a Findings dated June 19, 2017 available at https://is.gd/n8sFlW from Leagle.com, Judge Young held that counts I and IV must fail as matter of law because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case of loss. In light of the Plaintiffs' failure to establish loss, the Court further declined to grant other declaratory or injunctive relief under section 1132(a) (3) (count V). Braden Campbell, writing for Law360, reports that Judge Young rejected the workers' remaining claims after a two-week trial, noting among other things that the workers did not show Putnam breached its duty of loyalty to them by putting its interests ahead of theirs. "The plaintiffs' duty of loyalty claims are reduced almost exclusively to identifying instances of self-dealing," Judge Young said. "However, pointing to self-dealing alone is insufficient for the plaintiffs to meet their burden of persuasion." Putnam argued that it fulfilled its fiduciary duty of prudence to its workers because its investment division closely monitored the performance of its funds as a matter of business. But this ignores that the duty of prudence was owed by the committee put in charge of the retirement plans and not the company itself, Judge Young said. Nevertheless, this second prong of the workers' breach of duties claim fails because they did not lay out a case that Putnam caused them losses by mismanaging the funds. Though the Southern District of New York has found that investors have a case for a breach of fiduciary duty when they challenge the "overall investment strategy" of a fund, Judge Young said investors must show a specific poor decision. The workers failed to do so here, he said. "Although the plaintiffs contend that they 'are not required to prove that any individualized investment decision was imprudent because no individualized investment decisions were made' . . . this argument lacks legal support," Judge Young said. The judge tossed the other claims on similar logic, noting that the workers' ill-gotten proceeds claim "erroneously assumes that they have made a prima facie showing" and that the failure to monitor claim likewise requires them to demonstrate losses. "We are very pleased with the court's decision that the plan was managed with the best interests of plan participants in mind," said Michael Hines -- michael.hines@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, who represented Putnam, in a statement. "As we established early on in this case, the 401(k) plan at issue is a good plan and well-designed." A Putnam spokesperson added that the company was pleased with the decision. Joan Glancy and John Brotherson are represented by Brandon T. McDonough, Esq. -- bmcdonough@nka.com -- Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. -- cfengstrom@nka.com -- Jacob T. Schutz, Esq. -- jtschultz@nka.com -- and -- James H. Kaster, Esq. -- jhkaster@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP -- Jason M. Leviton, Esq. -- jason@blockesq.com -- Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq. -- bradley@blockesq.com -- and -- Jacob A. Walker, Esq. -- jacob@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP Putnam Investments, LLC, et al. are represented by Eben P. Colby, Esq. -- eben.colby@skadden.com -- James R. Carroll, Esq. -- james.carroll@skadden.com -- Michael S. Hines, Esq. -- michael.hines@skadden.com -- and Raoul D. Kennedy, Esq. -- raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER, & FLOM LLP REO CONTRACTORS: Faces "Caldwell" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- CHERYL CALDWELL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. REO CONTRACTORS, INC., KINDALE PITTMAN, individually, and HOLLY KIRK, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01552-C (N.D. Tex., June 9, 2017), alleges that Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay its workers for all hours of work at the rates required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Further, the case alleges that Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week but was not paid overtime for doing this excessive work. Instead, Defendant misclassified its employees as exempt from the protections of the FLSA and failed to pay proper regard to the amount of hours Plaintiff and Class Members actually worked or guarantee proper payment of the minimum wage. Defendant Reo Contractors, Inc. provides general contracting services for foreclosed properties in Texas and elsewhere. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a salaried, overtime- exempt employee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Travis Gasper, Esq. J. Derek Braziel, Esq. J. Forester, Esq. Travis Gasper, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com forester@l-b-law.com gasper@l-b-law.com RHEEM MANUFACTURING: NJ Court Narrows "Argabright" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned LAWRENCE ARGABRIGHT, VICTORIA FECHT, and LIBRADO MONTANO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant, Civil No. 15-5243 (JBS/AMD) (D. N.J.), Judge Jerome B. Simandle of the U.D. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion. In this putative multi-state class action, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant manufactured defective residential heating, ventilating, and air conditioning ("HVAC") systems under the Rheem and Ruud brand names. They assert the following claims in their Amended Complaint: breach of express warranty (Count I); breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count II); fraudulent concealment (Count III); negligent misrepresentation (Count IV); violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA") (Count V); violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA") (Count VI); violation of New York General Business Law Section 349 ("NYGBL") (Count VII); violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act ("ACFA") (Count VIII); unjust enrichment (Count IX); and a claim for declaratory relief (Count X). The Defendant has moved to dismiss all claims in the Amended Complaint, with the exception of the claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability as to Plaintiff Argabright. The Plaintiffs have submitted a Response in opposition and the Defendant has submitted a Reply. The Court finds that even construed liberally, the allegations in the Plaintiffs' Complaint are insufficient to plausibly make out their claims for breach of warranty as to Argabright. However, the Court denied the Defendant's Motion as to Fecht. Furthermore, because Arizona law disapproves of disposing with claims of unconscionability at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the Court also denied the Defendant's Motion as to Montano. The Court also finds that the Fecht has made out a plausible allegation that the contractors who sold and installed Fecht's and Montano's HVACs were "Rheem Team Top Contractors" and thereby acted as agents of the Defendant, which would establish the required privity. Of course, the Defendant is free to renew this argument at a later stage of the proceedings should it believe that the development of the factual record reveals that the contractors in question cannot properly be understood as the Defendant's agents. For that reason, the Court declined to dismiss Count II as to Plaintiffs Fecht and Montano. Pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, Motamed v. Chubb Corp., the Court sees no reason to revisit or disturb that ruling, and declined to dismiss Count V as it relates to the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty. For the same reasons, the Court declined to dismiss Count V as it relates to Fecht's claim of breach of the express warranty and Montano's claim of breach of warranty on the grounds of unconscionability. The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims of fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation because it found that the allegations in the complaint were insufficient to show that the Defendant knowingly or negligently misrepresented or omitted a material fact about a possible defect in their HVAC units. Again, the Amended Complaint does not include sufficient allegations tending to show the requisite element of concealment, and is devoid of sufficient factual allegations to allow for a reasonable inference that the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating any alleged false information. For those reasons, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim of negligent misrepresentation. The Court also previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims under the NJCFA, the ACFA, and NYGBL, all of which prohibit deceptive practices in connection with the sale or advertisement of consumer goods. As the Court also already discussed in its earlier opinion that to the extent that the Plaintiffs rely on a theory that the Defendant committed consumer fraud through material omission or failure to warn about a defect, that argument is unavailing. Furthermore, the Amended Complaint does not address or cure the Court's previous ruling that the complaint was devoid of any facts which would create an inference that, at the time of their purchase, Argabright, Fecht, or Montano were aware of the allegedly false advertising claims. Accordingly, Counts VI, VII, and VIII are dismissed by the Court for failure to state a claim. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment is insufficiently pled. It, therefore, dismissed the claim for unjust enrichment. As for the Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief, the Court agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiffs cannot allege facts from which it appears there is a substantial likelihood that they will suffer injury in the future, as a party requesting a declaratory judgment must do. For this reason, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/w4StgA from Leagle.com. LAWRENCE ARGABRIGHT, Plaintiff, represented by MELANIE H. MUHLSTOCK, PARKER WAICHMAN LLP. VICTORIA FECHT, Plaintiff, represented by MELANIE H. MUHLSTOCK, PARKER WAICHMAN LLP. LIBRADO MONTANO, Plaintiff, represented by MELANIE H. MUHLSTOCK, PARKER WAICHMAN LLP. RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant, represented by AARON VAN NOSTRAND -- vannostranda@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP & DAVID JAY -- GREENBERG TAURIG, LLP. SEARS BRAND: Faces TCPA Class Action in California -------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports that an Alameda County business alleges it was unlawfully contacted by Sears Brand LLC. Abante Rooter & Plumbing filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on June 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Sears Brand LLC, doing business as Sears Home Improvement and Sears Home Services, citing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that beginning in 2016, it suffered damages from receiving several solicitation calls despite being registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. The plaintiff holds Sears Brand LLC responsible because the defendant allegedly used an automatic telephone dialing system to call the plaintiff without having a prior relationship. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory damages, $1,500 in treble damages, injunctive relief and any other relief as the court deems just. It is represented by Joshua Swigart, Esq. -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- and Yana Hart of Hyde and Swigart in San Diego. [GN] U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case number 4:17-cv-03312-JSW SEVEN NINETY CO: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Aguirre Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- HEIDI AGUIRRE, JOSUE FLORES, JAVIER AVALOS, ALFREDO GONZALEZ, and MOES 1 through 1,000, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SEVEN NINETY COMPANY, INC, dba INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES, a Nevada Corporation; ROD MACHPHERSON, and individual; RICHARD SANDNES, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC664624 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 14, 2017), seeks to recover full amount of minimum wage and overtime compensation including attorney's fees, and costs of suit under California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that all members of the class are similarly situated in that, throughout their employment, they were subject to Defendants' violations of California labor law, including failing to pay all earned minimum, regular rate, reporting time, stand-by, and overtime wages. Seven Ninety is a mid-sized organization in the restaurants industry located in Rosemead, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert W. Skripko, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. SKRIPKO, JR, PC 38 Corporate Park Irvine, CA 92606 Telephone: (949) 476 2000 Facsimile: (949) 476 2007 - and - Paul J. Dennis, Esq. Ethan E. Rasi, Esq. DENIS & RASI, PC 38 Corporate Park Irvine, CA 92606 Telephone: (714) 242 4557 Facsimile: (213) 443 9601 SLATER AND GORDON: Vows to Fight Babscay Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Slater and Gordon says it will fight a class action brought against it by one of its shareholders for allegedly making false financial statements. The law firm has told the Australian Securities Exchange it has been served with a class action by Babscay, which alleges Slater and Gordon's financial statements for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 financial years contained false and/or misleading statements. Babscay is acting on behalf of shareholders who acquired an interest in Slater and Gordon shares between August 24, 2012 and November 19, 2015. "The allegations focus on the way in which the company recognised revenue and, in financial year 2015, accounted for acquisitions in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards," Slater and Gordon said, stressing it would vigorously defend the claims. Slater and Gordon's market value has fallen from $2.8 billion in April 2015, to just $34 million after a disastrous $1.2 billion acquisition of Quindell's professional services division in the UK. In a different set of proceedings, rival law firm Maurice Blackburn is leading a class action representing thousands of Slater and Gordon shareholders over disclosure of financial information between March 2015 and February 2016. [GN] SPOTLESS GRPOUP: IMF Bentham to Stop Funding Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Simon Evans and Jenny Wiggins, writing for Australian Financial Review, report that one of the class actions faced by takeover target Spotless Group from aggrieved shareholders over announcements made by the company in late 2015 is being discontinued. Spotless chairman Garry Hounsell has seized upon the withdrawal as backing the company's position that it had always been in compliance with its continuous disclosure obligations. Mr Hounsell on June 20 reiterated again that Spotless shareholders should reject the $1.15 per share takeover offer from Downer EDI. Fresh notices to the ASX on June 20 showed that Downer now holds 37.17 per cent of Spotless. Downer on June 19 announced that its takeover bid was now free of all conditions. "Spotless is at an inflection point and we remain confident regarding the company's future prospects, particularly as the business continues to execute to plan," Mr Hounsell said. He also said that Spotless had undertaken a sale and leaseback of its Abbotsford laundry facility in Melbourne, which was expected to deliver net proceeds of $10.5 million. Settlement would happen before June 30 and the proceeds would be used to cut debt. Mr Hounsell said it was pleasing to see the announcement on June 20 that litigation funder IMF Bentham proposed to stop funding a shareholder class action by William Roberts Lawyers announced in January and February this year, and that proceedings would be discontinued. IMF said the withdrawal will result in a loss of $510,000 to the company on that particular foray. There is still another separate class action being run by Slater & Gordon which was lodged in May 2017 against Spotless, over similar allegations surrounding market announcements made by Spotless between August and December, 2015 prior to a profit downgrade by the company. Spotless has said all along that it denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intended to vigorously defend the proceedings. [GN] SOLID WOOD: "Boone" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA BOONE and RAY MARRERO, for themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE SOLID WOOD CABINET COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04323-KM-JBC (D.N.J., June 14, 2017), seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs bring their FLSA claim as a collective action for all people who worked for Solid Wood as a designer, salesperson, or other similarly titled position in any week during the maximum limitations period. The Plaintiffs contend that Solid Wood violated the FLSA and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, because it knowingly suffered or permitted Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated individuals to work in excess of 40 hours in given workweeks without paying them at a premium rate for all overtime hours worked. Solid Wood Cabinet Company is a "factory-direct" retail company, established in 2002.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Andrew Ficzko, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 873 4836 Facsimile: (312) 233 1560 STERLING JEWELERS: "Masten" Suit Moved to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Veronica Masten, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., an Ohio corporation; Signet Jewelers Limited, Erroneously Sued As Signet Jewelers, LTD; and Defendant Does 1 through 30, inclusive, Case No. BC660989, was removed on June 14, 2017 from Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District Of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-04436-DSF-JEM to the proceeding. Sterling Jewelers is an American specialty jewelry company headquartered in Akron, Ohio. The company was founded in 1910 by Henry Shaw, from LeRoy's Jewelers in Lorain, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shadie Latae Berenji, Esq. BERENJI LAW FIRM APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 708 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 855 3270 Facsimile: (310) 855 3751 E-mail: berenji@employeejustice.law The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C Skeen, Esq. Timothy L Johnson, Esq. OLGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC 4370 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652 3100 Facsimile: (858) 652 3101 E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com SUREID INC: Faces "Flaig" Lawsuit Alleging WARN Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- FALANA MARIE FLAIG on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SUREID, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv- 00910-BR (D. Ore., June 9, 2017), is an action for collection of alleged unpaid wages and benefits for sixty (60) calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant until she was terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff ordered by the Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence R. Cock, Esq. CABLE, LANGENBACH, KINERK & BAUER, LLP Suite 3500, 1000 Second Avenue Building Seattle, WA 98104-1048 Phone: (206) 292-8800 Fax: (206) 292-0494 E-mail: lrc@cablelang.com - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10038 Phone: (212) 581-5005 Fax: (212) 581-2122 - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, PC 210 S. Washington Ave. Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: (251) 433-8100 Fax: (251) 433-8181 - and - THE NLG MAURICE AND JANE SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 733 St. Antoine, 3rd Floor Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: (313) 962-6540 SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on June 20 disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of holders of Swift Transportation Company ("Swift") (NYSE:SWFT) common stock in connection with the proposed transaction pursuant to which Swift and Bishop Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub") will be combined with Knight Transportation, Inc. ("Knight"), announced on April 10, 2017 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Swift, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Knight, is captioned Sciabacucchi v. Swift Transportation Company, Case No. 2:17-cv-01683-JZB (D. Ariz.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl- legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/. On April 9, 2017, Swift entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Knight. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Swift will receive 0.72 shares of Knight for each share of Swift common stock (the "Proposed Transaction"). Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a registration statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2017. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement, which recommends that Swift stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with respect to Swift's financial projections and potential conflicts of interest. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Swift common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 21, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in state and federal courts throughout the United States. TEMPLE ISRAEL: "Orellana" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- RAUL ORELLANA, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff, v. TEMPLE ISRAEL OF GREAT NECK, LEDERMAN CATERERS OF GREAT NECK, LTD. and LEON SILVERBERG, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03581-LDW-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Fla., June 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, unpaid spread-of- hours premium, liquidated damages and statutory penalties, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them minimum wage and overtime premium at the rate of one and one half times the regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 TIM HORTONS: Franchisees Commence $500MM Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that a group of Tim Hortons franchisees have launched a $500-million class-action lawsuit against the parent company for mismanagement of the brand, accusing the chain's owners of making it harder for them to stay in business. The group of franchisees, who call themselves the Great White North Franchisee Association, say that ever since the firm Restaurant Brands bought the iconic coffee and doughnut chain and merged it with Burger King in 2014 their costs have increased, but the new owners haven't allowed them to raise prices to recoup those costs. They went public with their complaints earlier this year, but after working with management behind the scenes to try to address their concerns, they launched the class-action lawsuit on June 19, seeking $500 million in damages. "Since its acquisition," the statement of claim reads, "[Restaurant Brands] has used various strategies to extract more money out of the Tim Hortons franchise system at the expense of franchisees." The suit is on behalf of one franchisee, 1523428 Ontario Inc., which owns two Tim Hortons franchises in the Toronto area, but seeks other plaintiffs to join the court action. The class-action lawsuit must be certified before proceeding, which means a judge must decide whether a class action is the appropriate course of action, from a legal perspective. "Changes instituted by RBI over the past two years have shaken the system, threatened the brand and affected the ability of franchisees to carry on viable business," the group says on its website. Marketing money misspent Among the allegations in the statement of claim is that the parent company is misusing the millions of dollars that franchisees pay for marketing. As per the terms of their franchise agreements, Tim Hortons franchisees are required to contribute 3.5 per cent of their net sales every year into a fund used to market the chain collectively. Since Restaurant Brands bought the chain, Canadian franchisees have contributed a total of $700 million to the so-called ad fund. The statement of claim says that since the RBI takeover, franchisees have little say in how that ad fund is spent, and they allege some of the funds in it are being spent on things that don't help market the chain. "RBI has funnelled this money to itself, TDL and the individual defendants at the wrongful expense of the franchisees," the statement of claim says. The suit is launched against the corporate entities of Tim Hortons and Restaurant Brands, but also individual executives including Tim Hortons president Elias Diaz Sese, and Restaurant Brands CEO Daniel Schwartz. For its part, the companies told CBC News in a statement that "it is very disappointing that a few restaurant owners have opted to take actions against us when our focus remains on protecting and enhancing the brand." "We vehemently disagree with and deny all the allegations that have been made about our business and the brand. We remain committed to working together with our restaurant owners to ensure the incredible Tim Hortons brand continues to be strong for many years to come," the statement reads. Tim Hortons' Canada President Sami Siddiqui sent a letter to all Canadian franchisees on June 19, echoing that tone. " "We vehemently disagree with and deny all the allegations that have been made about our business and the brand," Siddiqui said. "It is very unfortunate that certain owners have chosen to make these public accusations given that we have offered to let any owner come in and review the numbers with us, line by line, as we have done in the past. As we have discussed many times before, these types of public accusations will only hurt the brand that all of you have worked so hard to build." [GN] TURN KEY: "Ortiz" Suit Sues over Wage and Hour Violation -------------------------------------------------------- RAMNON ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TURN KEY CONTRACTOR SOLUTIONS, LLC and CODY LAWRENCE, as an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 03517-SJF-AKT (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000 for violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment at Turn Key Contractor Solutions, LLC. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked 60-70 hours per week for Defendants from March 2016 until November 2016. However Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wage in violation of Fair Labor Standard Act and New York Labor Law. Turn key Contractor offers home improvement services in Bohemia, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263 9591 TURNER CONTRACTING: "Outley" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES OUTLEY II, and individual on his own behalf and on behalves of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TURNER CONTRACTING INC, an Indiana corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-03465-NC (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and liquidated damages under California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the class timely meal and rest breaks, overtime compensation, one day rest, and minimum wage for all hours worked. Turner Contracting is a family owned and operated business with over a decade of experience specializing in mining and mass excavation projects.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kikey L. GRombacher, Esq. Taylor L. Emerson, Esq. 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 90361 Telephone: (805) 270 7100 Facsimile: (805) 270 7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com - and - Walter L. Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256 1047 Facsimile: (562) 256 1006 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Disputes Class Action Over Pricing Model ----------------------------------------------------------- Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that Uber slammed a proposed class action alleging it breached its contract with drivers by stiffing them on fares with its so-called upfront pricing model, telling a California federal judge on June 19 that the plaintiff has misread the agreement and doesn't have a valid case. Uber Technologies Inc. filed a motion to dismiss North Carolina driver Martin Dulberg's proposed class action alleging that drivers have been shortchanged on fares -- a percentage of which they're promised in their driver agreements with the company -- after Uber switched to a so-called upfront pricing model in the fall of 2016. "Plaintiff's claims rest on a misreading of the agreement," Uber said. "The contract itself is before this court, and its written terms provide no support for plaintiff's contentions. Adopting plaintiff's interpretation would alter the bargain that the parties actually made." Under that upfront pricing model, the ride-hailing giant charges passengers a fare before their ride even begins, but Uber bases that fare on an aggressive and often inflated projection of the distance and time involved in a particular ride, Mr. Dulberg alleged. The driver is entitled to a set percentage of the fare as laid out in the driver agreements, but Uber pays based on a calculation of the distance and time actually driven, which can often be less than what the customer actually paid, allowing Uber to pocket the difference, according to Mr. Dulberg's complaint. Uber insists that Mr. Dulberg's suit should be dismissed for failure to state a claim because his breach of contract allegations don't square with the actual provisions in his contract, according to the motion to dismiss. "Contrary to the mischaracterization of the agreement set forth in the complaint, the agreement itself does not base driver payments on 'whatever money passengers pay' or get 'charged' (whether 'upfront' or at the 'end of the ride')," Uber says. "Plaintiff's contention -- that the 'fare' assessed to riders, or paid by riders (whether upfront or otherwise), constitutes the 'fare' owed to drivers -- is irreconcilable with the contract's actual terms." Uber also said its statement about upfront pricing is a promotional statement addressed to riders who use the service, not to drivers. Furthermore, it does not discuss what portion of the upfront price will be paid to drivers, and it describes some components for calculating the upfront price, or "fare," that differ from the fare calculation that produces the fare found in the agreement. Mr. Dulberg, a Raleigh, North Carolina, resident who has been an UberX driver since May 2014 and an Uber Select driver since February 2015, launched the proposed class action in February, claiming Uber drivers are promised that they will be able to retain 80 percent of the fare charged to passengers for UberX rides but in fact retain a smaller percentage of the fare. "Defendants, by charging a greater fare to riders than the calculation used to determine payment to drivers, have deprived plaintiff and the class members of the full benefits they are entitled to under the parties' agreements," Mr. Dulberg alleged in the complaint. Mr. Dulberg's attorney, Paul B. Maslo of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, said on June 20 that the plaintiff will respond in an upcoming opposition brief. Mr. Dulberg is represented by Paul B. Maslo and Andrew Dressel of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC. Uber is represented by Jonathan R. Bass -- jrb@coblentzlaw.com -- Susan K. Jamison -- skj@coblentzlaw.com -- Clifford E. Yin -- cyin@coblentzlaw.com -- and Sean P.J. Coyle -- scoyle@coblentzlaw.com -- of Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP. The case is Dulberg v. Uber Technologies Inc., case number 3:17- cv-00850, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] VIVINT SOLAR: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 2 Claims in "Stadnick" ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's Sections 11 and 15 claims and in the case captioned ROBBY SHAWN STADNICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, BRENNEN HYATT, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS LIMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, v. VIVINT SOLAR, INC., THE BLACKSTONE GROUP L.P., GREGORY S. BUTTERFIELD, DANA C. RUSSELL, DAVID F. D'ALESSANDRO, ALEX J. DUNN, BRUCE McEVOY, TODD R. PEDERSEN, JOSEPH F. TRUSTEY, PETER F. WALLACE, JOSEPH S. TIBBETTS, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BLACKSTONE ADVISORY PARTNERS L.P., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-65-cv (2nd Cir.). Plaintiff-Appellant Robby Shawn Stadnick filed a case arising from the October 1, 2014 Initial Public Offering (IPO) for shares of Vivint Solar, Inc., a residential solar energy unit installer. Stadnick principally argues on appeal that Vivint was obligated to disclose financial information for the quarter ending one day before the IPO because Vivint's performance during that quarter constituted an "extreme departure" under Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp., 82 F.3d 1194 (1st Cir. 1996). He also argues that Vivint misled prospective shareholders regarding the company's opportunities for expansion in Hawaii by failing to disclose the potential impact of the state's evolving regulatory regime. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, J.) dismissing his securities class action complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) concluding that the "extreme departure" test of Shaw is not the law of this Circuit and that Vivint's omissions were not material under the test set forth in DeMaria v. Andersen, 318 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2003), to which we adhere. The Court further conclude that Vivint did not mislead shareholders regarding the company's prospects in Hawaii. On appeal, Stadnick argues that the district court erred in determining that the second amended complaint failed to state a claim under Section 11 when it alleged that Vivint failed to disclose, first, the financial information from the third quarter of 2014 and, second, the material adverse effect on its business of the evolving regulatory regime in Hawaii. Stadnick further argues that, because his Section 11 claims were improperly dismissed, so too were his claims under Section 15. In a Decision dated June 21, 2017, available at https://is.gd/nMeHpR from Leagle.com, the Second Circuit held that there is no basis to disturb the district court's conclusion that the percentage drop in Hawaii was not a material fact that needed to be disclosed and that there is no basis for holding that Vivint failed to fulfill its affirmative disclosure obligation under Item 303 of Regulation S-K regarding the evolving regulatory regime in Hawaii. Robby Shawn Stadnick, Brennen Hyatt and Thomas Lima are represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt, Esq. -- nporritt@zlk.com -- and -- Adam M. Apton, Esq. -- aapton@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP Vivint Solar, Inc., et al. are represented by Jay B. Kasner, Esq. -- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- Scott D. Musoff, Esq. -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP VWR CORPORATION: Lawrence Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Avantor ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID LAWRENCE, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VWR CORPORATION, MANUEL A.H. BROCKE- BENZ, HARRY M. JANSEN KRAEMER, JR., NICHOLAS W. ALEXOS, ROBERT L. BARCHI, EDWARD A. BLECHSCHMIDT, ROBERT P. DECRESCE, PAMELA FORBES LIEBERMAN, TIMOTHY P. SULLIVAN, and ROBERT J. ZOLLARS, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02758-WB (E.D. Pa., June 14, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with the shareholder vote on the Proposed Merger or consummating the Proposed Merger, unless and until the Company discloses the material information discussed above, which has been omitted from the Proxy. This action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated public shareholders of VWR Corporation against VWR and the members of the Company's board of directors, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger between VWR, and Avantor, Inc., a global supplier of ultra-high-purity materials for the life sciences and advanced technology markets. The Proposed Merger will be accomplished through acquisition entities, Vail Acquisition Corp, a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Avantor, and New Mountain Capital L.L.C., a private equity investment firm. On May 5, 2017, VWR and Avantor jointly announced that they had reached a definitive Agreement under which Avantor will acquire VWR for $33.25 in cash per share of VWR common stock, reflecting an enterprise value of $6.4 billion. The Defendants have violated the Exchange Act by filing a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the SEC on June 1, 2017. The Board recommends that VWR's shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Merger at a forthcoming shareholder special meeting, and agree to exchange their shares pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement based on, among other things, the factors examined by the Board to make its recommendation and the opinion rendered by the Company's financial advisor, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated ("BofA Merrill Lynch"). While Defendants are touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, they have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy incomplete and misleading. VWR International is a global laboratory supplier and distributor of chemicals, life science products, consumables, equipment, instruments, and furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983 9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com WORLDVENTURES HOLDINGS: "Yiru" Suit Moved to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Melody Yiru, also known as: Shi Yiru, an individual, and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Worldventures Foundation, a Texas corporation; Worldventures Holdings, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; World Ventures, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; Worldventures Marketing, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; and Wayne Nugent, an individual; Michael Azcue, an individual; Daniel Stammen, an individual; and DOES 1-100, Case No. BC659422, was removed on June 12, 2017 from Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-04357-PA-KS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson. The Defendants are enganged in direct selling business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake J Lindemann, Esq. LINDEMANN LAW FIRM 433 North Camden Drive 4th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 279 5269 Facsimile: (310) 300 0267 E-mail: blake@lawbl.com - and - Daren M Schlecter, Esq. Law Office of Daren Schlecter 1925 Century Park East Suite 830 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553 5747 Facsimile: (310) 553 5487 E-mail: daren@schlecterlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: John Shaeffer, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 1800 Century Park East Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1506 Telephone: (310) 598 4150 Facsimile: (310) 556 9828 E-mail: jshaeffer@foxrothschild.com ZF CHASSIS: Faces "Smith" Suit in Northern Dist. of Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against ZF Chassis Systems Chicago, LLC. The case is captioned as Donna Smith, Mejra Sejfic, Shaundice Lenoir, and LerQuonna Cross, the Plaintiff, v. ZF Chassis Systems Chicago, LLC, formerly known as: ZF Lemforder Chicago, LLC, and ZF North America, Inc., formerly known as: ZF Lemforder Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04463 (N.D. Ill., June 13, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joan B. Gottschall. ZF Chassis manufactures auto parts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith L. Hunt, Esq. Bradley Edwin Faber, Esq. KEITH L. HUNT & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Three First National Plaza 70 W. Madison No. 2100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 558 1300 E-mail: khunt@huntassoclaw.com bfaber@huntassoclaw.com * Justice Dept. Leans Towards Employers on Class Action Waiver -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher J. Stevens, Esq. -- Christopher.Stevens@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis P.C, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that in a fascinating turn of events, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") switched sides in a critical pending Supreme Court case on June 16. The three consolidated cases -- National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Case No. 16-307, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Case No. 16-285 and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, Case No. 16-300 -- have been closely watched as the Supreme Court is expected to resolve a growing circuit split over whether an employment contract that requires an employee to waive his or her right to bring or participate in a class action violates the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). The NLRA protects employees' rights to engage in concerted activity concerning wages, hour and working conditions. Employers are increasingly relying on such waivers, which are an effective way to avoid costly class action litigation. Jackson Lewis represents Murphy Oil before the Supreme Court. Under the Obama Administration, the government had defended the NLRB's position that class action waivers violated the NLRA and were unenforceable. Now, under President Trump, the DOJ has reversed course. In an amicus curiae brief filed on June 16, DOJ expressly acknowledged that it had "previously filed a petition . . . on behalf of the NLRB, defending the Board's view" that class action waivers were unenforceable, but stated that "[a]fter the change in administration, the [DOJ] reconsidered the issue and has reached the opposite conclusion." Of course the change does not guarantee that the Supreme Court will agree with DOJ. It does, however, appear to make that outcome more likely -- especially given the recent appointment of Justice Gorsuch to the Court, breaking an ideological stalemate. [GN] * Plaintiffs' Firms Earn Nearly $1BB from 2016 Securities Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that last year was a big one for high-dollar settlements in securities class actions -- and for the plaintiffs lawyers representing investors, who took in nearly $1 billion in legal fees and expenses in connection with settlements finalized in 2016. Settlements in 13 securities class actions that came to points of resolution in 2016 made it onto an annual list of the top 100 securities settlements of all time, according to a report released on June 14 by Securities Class Action Services, a division of Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. That's a record, ISS said, "resulting in the largest approved settlement fund of any single year." In all, the 13 settlements that made the ISS top 100 list in 2016 add up to about $5.6 billion, with an average of $431.4 million. And according to an analysis by The American Lawyer based on court records, plaintiffs firms involved in those deals came away with fees and expenses totaling about $999.8 million, with an average fee and expense award of $76.9 million. Among the high-ranked settlements jumping onto the list in 2016 were the seventh-ranked $1.575 billion settlement in litigation involving Household International Inc., and the 11th-ranked $1.06 billion settlement in securities litigation against Merck & Co. Inc. Some of the deals on the ISS top 100 list are the product of multiple settlements in a particular litigation. A pair of heavyweight plaintiffs firms in the securities class action realm led investors to those two highest-ranked settlements finalized in 2016 -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd served as lead counsel in the Household International case, resulting in a fee and expense award totaling $33.6 million, while Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann led the Merck litigation and secured an award of $221.5 million in fees and expenses. The Merck case, which dated back to 2003 in New Jersey federal court, resulted in the highest fee and expense award of the 13 settlements that made the top 100 list in 2016. The lead firm for investors in that case, Bernstein Litowitz, also came up the most often as lead plaintiffs counsel among the group of 13 settlements finalized in 2016, serving as lead or co-lead counsel in six of the 13. "Since [ISS] began compiling and publishing data on securities litigation recoveries and the law firms prosecuting the cases over a decade ago, [Bernstein Litowitz] has been at or near the top of their rankings every year -- often with the highest total recoveries, the highest settlement average, or both," the firm said in an announcement noting its place on the ISS list. Beyond the Merck settlement, two other cases also led to awards of more than $100 million to plaintiffs lawyers. In connection with a $486 million settlement of litigation against Pfizer Inc., which ranked 29th on the ISS list, a federal judge in Manhattan awarded roughly $156.1 million in fees and expenses. Grant & Eisenhofer was lead counsel for the investor plaintiffs in that case. And a $310 million settlement in litigation against Caremark Rx Inc. led an Alabama Circuit Court judge to award $126.6 million in fees and expenses. That case had lead counsel from three plaintiffs firms that are smaller than typically seen elsewhere in the ISS report: Hare Wynn Newell & Newton; Francis Law; and Somerville. The ISS list follows a report released earlier this year by Cornerstone Research, which also tracks securities litigation, saying that a record number of new securities class actions were filed last year. The Cornerstone report, released in late January, showed that 270 new securities class actions were filed in 2016, with many of them lodged against biotechnology and health care companies. * Trump Administration Protects Arbitration Clauses --------------------------------------------------- Jeff Spross, writing for The Week, reports that the list of the Trump administration's sins against working Americans is already long. But we will soon be able to add another item: protecting arbitration clauses. These are legal mechanisms hidden in tons of worker and consumer contracts that essentially force people to settle disputes with businesses in private arbitration, rather than in court or other collective actions. They're a poisonous and ubiquitous practice in the American economy. An upcoming Supreme Court case, National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil, is all about whether a company can use arbitration clauses to force its employees to forego class-action lawsuits and the like. In 2012, the NLRB concluded these arbitration clauses violated labor law, prompting a legal fight that's split various appeals courts. President Obama's Justice Department originally backed the NLRB's position. But as soon as President Trump took over, the DOJ switched sides. Conservatives already hold a five-seat majority on the court, so the Trump team's decision makes a favorable ruling for arbitration even more likely. With Trump's signature, the GOP-dominated Congress also killed a federal regulation squashing arbitration clauses among government contractors. And rulings by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other agencies, aiming to cut back on the use of arbitration, are also in jeopardy. There's a lesson in how we got here. The history of arbitration clauses is a textbook example of how decades of careless or just haphazard decisions, driven by the slow pressure of the profit motive, can change innocuous policy into a weapon for big business. It begins in 1925 with the passage of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The law's scope was meant to be quite limited -- lawmakers explicitly said it was only for "merchants" who were in a dispute. If two businesses had some sort of contractual disagreement, they could avoid the expense and inconvenience of taking one another to court. Instead, the FAA created a private process where the two companies could rely on an arbitrator to make legally-binding decisions. This is crucial to realize: The FAA was originally designed for arbitration between two institutions of equal power. But companies began experimenting with arbitration clauses, and how far they could push their adoption, in the early 1990s. Corporate lawyers wanted to cut down on the amount of class-action lawsuits their clients faced. They realized they could put clauses into their consumer and employee contracts that forced people to essentially waive their rights to sue in a class-action lawsuit or labor dispute. At first, courts pushed back, saying the clauses violated state law or other jurisprudence. In 2002, Discover tried to use arbitration as the only route for consumers to push back at unfair credit card fees, but the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. At the same time, the Supreme Court itself had opened the door to broader interpretations when it determined in 1984 that the FAA established a "national policy favoring arbitration." The California Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that arbitration decisions have power even if they lead to "substantial injustice" and legally incorrect outcomes. In 2006, two different appeals court circuits further insulated arbitration decisions from legal review. So the courts were coming around to companies' way of thinking. Finally, in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that AT&T could enforce an arbitration clause that was basically identical to what Discover tried to use in 2002. The best part? The lawyer arguing Discover's 2002 case was one John Roberts -- the very same John Roberts who was chief justice when the Supreme Court ruled in AT&T's favor. In fact, the conflicts of interest judges face in the modern arbitration system are appalling. Many of them enjoy lucrative side gigs as professional arbitrators. The salaries for U.S. district court judges are impressive, but they still pale in comparison to what people can earn in private legal practice. And the private firms that supply most professional arbitration services recruit heavily among U.S. judges. Even more perversely, it's the companies facing arbitration that supply those private arbitration firms with future business. It's similar to what occurred in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, when the credit rating agencies that assessed the safety of mortgage-backed securities were paid by the banks who created those securities. Back when arbitration was primarily about conflicts between two different companies, this wasn't such a big deal, because both sides were equally likely to employ the firm again in the future. But now arbitration is mainly about conflicts between companies on one side and consumers and workers on the other. That creates a fundamental imbalance of power. Class-action lawsuits and labor law procedures allow consumers and workers to band together into massive groups. That way they can collect damages that are big enough to actually change a company's behavior and attract the kind of legal talent that can actually win. En masse, ordinary people can wield resources and clout at least somewhat equal to big business. But arbitration clauses effectively allow companies to separate people out from the herd. Individual Americans may get into an arbitration dispute once or twice in their lifetimes. Companies face them continually, and wield far more power than their opponent in each individual arbitration dispute. Employees and consumers are less likely to win than when they go to court, and even when they win, the damages awarded are much smaller. That makes companies unlikely to change their behavior even in defeat. Not surprisingly, arbitration clauses are now ubiquitous in the U.S. economy. They apply to credit cards, rental cars, cable, mobile phones, student loans, nursing homes, and more. In the relationships between employers and workers, they're used in everything from the banking industry to fast food and retail. The National Employment Lawyers Association estimated that 30 million workers labor under the umbrella of arbitration clauses -- and that was back in 2008. Between 2010 and 2014, there were around 500 arbitration disputes involving $2,500 or less, according to an analysis by The New York Times. Among Verizon's 125 million customers, it faced 65 arbitrations over that time. Time-Warner dealt with only seven arbitrations out of 15 million customers. Far from replacing class-action lawsuits as a viable alternative to righting corporate wrongs -- as arbitration is often presented by its defenders -- these clauses are simply stopping people from pushing back at all. [GN] ********* 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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381- 8268. * * * End of Transmission * * *