/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170802.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 2, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 151 Headlines 1220 MANAGEMENT: "McGregor" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages 1220 MANAGEMENT: Withheld Tips Claimed in "Keltz" Labor Suit ABOVE THE REST: Unpaid Overtime Wages Sought in "Heiser" Suit ADVANTAGECARE: Faces "Kiler" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AEROTEK INC: Ohio Court Adopts Report & Recommendation in "Moore" AFFORDABLE SENIOR: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims ALABAMA: Court Explains Final Approval of "Braggs" Deal ALBANY MOLECULAR: Faces "Eyre" Suit Over Carlyle Merger ALLIANCE ENERGY: Ct. Conditionally Certifies Class in "Dearmond" AMERICO FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses "Hancock" Without Prejudice ANZ SECURITIES: Class Suit Face Tougher Road After Ruling APPLE INC: Bid to Dismiss "Davidson" Suit Partly Granted ARCONIC INC: Faces "Tripson" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ARIZONA: Corrections Dept. Fails to Fix Health Care Issues ASIMRAS LLC: "Troitino" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ATKINS NUTRITIONALS: Sued Over Misleading "Net Carbs" Claims AUSTRALIA: Indonesian Cattle Cruelty Shown at Class Action Trial AUSTRALIA: NT Cattlemen's Association Happy with Case Progress AWP INC: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Luster" BANK OF AMERICA: "Castillo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages BAY OF PLENTY: Edgecumbe Flood Class Action Gains Supporters BBC: Female Reporters Mull Class Action Over Gender Pay Gap BEANOCCHIO OF YORK: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT BROWN UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty BULL ROGERS: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Calvillo" BURLINGTON COAT: Settlement in "Horosny" Gets Final Approval CALIFORNIA: "Fire Tax" Class Action to Continue Despite Repeal CANADA: Apology to N&L Residential School Survivors Long Overdue CARE CAPITAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit CESAR'S RESTAURANT: "Leyva" Seeks Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips CHICAGO, IL: Agrees to Settle Red Light Tickets Class Action CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sept 18 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S: Court Dismisses "Durham" With Prejudice CLASSIC PARKING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Lembeck" Suit Claims CLOROX COMPANY: Faces Class Action for False Advertising CLOROX COMPANY: "Gregorio" Alleges Product Mislabeling COLLECTO INC: Jones Files Suit Over FDCPA Violations COVISINT CORP: "Lai" Claims Shortchanged on Merger Deal CREDIT CONTROL: "Evans" Hits Unjust Threat in Collection Letter CSW INC: Bid to Invalidate Private Deals in "Morgan" Granted DEMO MASTERS: Gregorio Sues Over Inaccurate Wage Statements EXTENDED STAY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages FACEBOOK INC: Fights Data Security Class Action in EU Court FCA US: Loses Bid to Deny Class Certification in "Victorino" FLOYD COUNTY, IN: Proposed Class Action Deal Awaits Approval FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Driveshaft Flexible Coupling GALLERY AUTOMOTIVE: "Sullivan" Remanded to Mass. State Court GENERAL MOTORS: "Pope" Hits Share Price Drop from Emissions Fraud GREATBANC TRUST: "McMaken" Suit Asserts ERISA Breach GOOD SHEPHERD: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Jones" Suit Alleges HENKEL AG: Faces Class Action Over Check Rebates IMG COLLEGE: Faces "Spielman" Over Athletes Compensation INDIANA BMV: Agrees to Settle Class Action Suit For $33.6-Mil. IDT CORPORATION: JDS1 Seeks to Invalidate Straight Path Sale JAMES RAPP: Dismissal of Suit vs. County Court Judge Affirmed JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Seek Answers on Mesh Case Funds KONG TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Certification in "Opperman" Suit LA STANZA: Accused by Altamirano of Not Paying Min. and OT Wages LURE GROUP: "Ferguson" Suit Seeks to Recover Withheld Tips MASTERCARD: Freshfields Wins Success in Antitrust Class Action MASTERCARD: Court Blocks $18-Bil. British Class Action MERCEDES-BENZ: Sued in California Over Illegal Defeat Device MONSANTO COMPANY: "Turner" Suit Transferred to N.D. California MURPHY OIL: Justices to Hear NLRB Class Action Waiver Cases NANDU THONDAVADI: "Brown" Sues Over Share Price Drop NINE WEST: Covell Files Suit Over Deceptive Sale Prices OCWEN FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $49-Mil. PANAGIA TINOS: "Pospoy" Seeks Spread-of-Hours, Overtime Pay PERSHING LLC: Court Dismisses "Hemphill" Suit Without Prejudice PJ OPS IDAHO: "Edwards" Suit Seeks Reimbursements, Overtime Pay PRET A MANGER: Escobar Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime PURDUE PHARMA: Settlement May Become Precursor to Gov't Lawsuits SCRUB INC: Fails to Properly Pay Cabin Cleaners, Adames Alleges SERVE U BRANDS: "Lusk" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages for Drivers SILVER LINING: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Altier Claims SKM RECYCLING: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Plant Fire SOUTHERN GLAZER: Faces Class Action Over False & Misleading Info SPOTIFY: Faces New Lawsuits Following Class Action Settlement STATE FARM: Ordered to File Amended Notice of Removal in "Ayers" STATE FARM: Faces "Martinez" Suit in Ill. Over Breach of Contract T&R MARKET: Faces Class Action Over Tax Refund Anticipation Loans TEXOLLINI INC: "Corrales" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT THALES AVIONICS: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work TREASURY WINE: Ruling Explores Class Closure Appropriateness TURNER BROADCASTING: "Henley" Race Discrimination Suit Dismissed U-HAUL: Hit With Class Action Over Breach of Contract ULTA SALON: Court Approves $718K in Atty Fees, Costs in "Moore" USAA CASUALTY: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in "Archuleta" OK'd USAA CASUALTY: District Ct. Rulings vs. Attys in "Adams" Reversed VOLKSWAGEN AG: Attorneys Get $125MM in Second Emission Settlement WAL-MART STORES: Mo. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Corozzo" Suit WELLS FARGO: Can Compel Arbitration in "Jeffries" Suit WEST CHESTER: Court Dismisses "McCann" Suit with Prejudice WEST CHESTER: Court Dismisses "Middendorf" Suit with Prejudice XBIOTECH INC: "Rezko" Sues Over IPO Share Price Drop YORK, ME: Court Denies Dismissal of "LeGrand" Suit ZAYO GROUP: Zhirovetskiy Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometrics Data * CFPB's Arbitration Rule Boon for Class Action Lawyers * Consumers Receive $366MM More Via Litigation Than Arbitration * FTC Issues 2nd Federal Register Notice on CA Programs Study * Republicans Launch Challenge to CFPB Class Action Rule ********* 1220 MANAGEMENT: "McGregor" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ Kristen McGregor on her own behalf and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 1220 Management Group, LLC, MH Employment Services, LLC and Keith Menin, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 22481 (S.D. Fla., July 5, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages, tip reimbursements, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as well as a claim for retaliation for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate a restaurant "Bodega" in Miami-Dade County, Florida where Plaintiff worked as a bartender. McGregor was fired allegedly for complaining about her withheld tips. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin R. Jackson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN JACKSON, PA 136 Southeast, Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (954) 779-2272 Email: kjackason@krjlaw.com 1220 MANAGEMENT: Withheld Tips Claimed in "Keltz" Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Heather Keltz on her own behalf and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 1220 Management Group, LLC, MH Employment Services, LLC and Keith Menin, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 22486 (S.D. Fla., July 5, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages, tip reimbursements, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as well as a claim for retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate a restaurant called "Bodega" in Miami-Dade County, Florida where Plaintiff worked as a bartender. Keltz was allegedly fired for complaining about her withheld tips. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin R. Jackson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN JACKSON, PA 136 Southeast, Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (954) 779-2272 Email: kjackason@krjlaw.com ABOVE THE REST: Unpaid Overtime Wages Sought in "Heiser" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- John Heiser, Plaintiff, v. Above the Rest Appliance Repair, LLC, and James Lengyel, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 04931 (D. N.J., July 5, 2017), is a collective action seeking recovery of overtime hours due but not properly compensated, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. Defendants own and/or maintain an appliance repair company in Netcong, Morris County, New Jersey where Heiser is employed by Defendants as a full time appliance repair man. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com ADVANTAGECARE: Faces "Kiler" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marion Kiler, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Advantagecare Physicians, P.C., Case No. 156389/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 14, 2017), seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by the Defendant, against the blind in New York State, specifically by denying blind individuals throughout New York State equal access to the goods and services Advantagecare Physicians provides to their non-disabled customers through http://www.acpny.com/. Advantagecare Physicians, P.C. operates a medical clinic located at 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com cklee@leelitigation.com AEROTEK INC: Ohio Court Adopts Report & Recommendation in "Moore" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned EBONY MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AEROTEK, INC., Defendant, AND JOSE RUBIO-DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AEROTEK, INC., Defendant, Case Nos. 2:15-cv-2701, 2:16-cv-1066 (S.D. Ohio), Judge George C. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, adopted and affirmed the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge on June 30, 2017, recommending the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Service Awards be granted. The parties were specifically advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation and of the consequences of their failure to do so. There has nevertheless been no objection to the Report and Recommendation. Judge Smith adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge for approval of the settlement amount of $15,000,000, and of Class Counsel's application for Attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $5,069,964.27, and for Class Representative Awards of $5,000 each to Plaintiffs Moore and Rubio-Delgado and $3,000 each to Plaintiffs Hubbard and Burgess. Further, an amount not to exceed $856,849.87 is authorized to cover the Settlement Administrator's fees and costs. The amounts are to be deducted from the settlement funds as set forth in detail in the Settlement Agreement. The Clerk is directed to remove Documents 30, 33, and 39 in Case No. 2:15-cv-2701 and Documents 104, 114, and 120 in Case No. 2:16- cv-1066 from the Court's pending motions list; and enter final judgment in the case. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/QPuh6J from Leagle.com. Ebony R. Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew A. Dooley -- mdooley@omdplaw.com -- O'Toole, McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora, Co. LPA. Ebony R. Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony R. Pecora -- apecora@omdplaw.com -- O'Toole, McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora, Co. LPA, Eleanor Michelle Drake -- emdrake@bm.net -- Berger & Montague & Joseph C. Hashmall, Berger & Montague. Aerotek, Inc., Defendant, represented by Chad J. Kaldor -- ckaldor@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Alison S. Hightower -- ahightower@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C., pro hac vice. AFFORDABLE SENIOR: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Alla Nesterenko, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Affordable Senior Care Inc., Case No. 156367/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, "spread of hours" compensation, reimbursement for business expenses borne for the benefit and convenience of the Defendant. Affordable Senior Care Inc. is primarily engaged in providing nursing and home health aide services at the residences of its clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com llusher@vandallp.com ALABAMA: Court Explains Final Approval of "Braggs" Deal ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned EDWARD BRAGGS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:14cv601-MHT (M.D. Ala.), Judge Myron H. Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division, explained the Court's reasons for granting final approval of the proposed phase 2A ADA settlement agreement and granted the parties' request that their settlement agreement be entered as a consent decree. The individual Plaintiffs in Phase 2A of this lawsuit are prisoners with serious mental illnesses in the custody of the Defendants. The Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program ("ADAP"), Alabama's protection and advocacy organization for people with disabilities, is also a Plaintiff. In this phase, the Plaintiffs assert the claim that the Department is in violation of two statutes: Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). They claim that systemic deficiencies within the Department result in discrimination against, and the Department's failure to accommodate, prisoners with mental disabilities. Following months of negotiations, the parties have settled these contentions. This case has twice been bifurcated for administrative convenience of the court and the parties. In September 2015, this case was divided into two distinct phases, with the first phase, Phase 1, involving ADA claims unrelated to mental health and the second phase involving all other claims. Then, in September 2016, Phase 2 of this case was further bifurcated into Phase 2A, encompassing an Eighth Amendment claim related to the treatment of prisoners with mental illness, involuntary-medication claims, and an ADA claim of prisoners with only mental disabilities; and Phase 2B, involving Eighth Amendment claims related to medical and dental care. The parties reached a settlement of the Plaintiffs' Phase 1 ADA claims for prisoners with physical disabilities. After an exhaustive approval process, the Court approved the Phase 1 settlement agreement, which resulted in a consent decree. During the Phase 2A trial, the parties, with the able assistance of United States Magistrate Judge John E. Ott of the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Alabama, reached a settlement of the remainder of the Plaintiffs' ADA claims: the Phase 2A ADA claim now before the Court concerning prisoners with only mental disabilities. After a hearing, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed Phase 2A ADA settlement agreement. After the hearing, the Court entered an order granting final approval of the proposed phase 2A ADA settlement agreement and granted the parties' request that their settlement agreement be entered as a consent decree. Broadly speaking, the agreement does two things: (i) it applies the provisions of the Phase 1 ADA settlement agreement to prisoners with only mental disabilities; and (ii) it requires the Department to administer an adaptive-behavior and life-skills course for mentally disabled inmates. The Department will (i) enroll appropriately identified prisoners into an adaptive-behavior and life-skills training program within six months of identification; (ii) attempt to minimize the transfer of prisoners while they are enrolled in the adaptive- behavior and life-skills training program; and (iii) provide an initial adaptive-behavior and life-skills training program that includes 22 hours of instruction, not to exceed 90 minutes per class. In addition to these substantive provisions, the settlement agreement contains the following implementation provisions, which were also included in the Phase 1 consent decree: a. ADAP will monitor the Department's compliance with the consent decree, and will be entitled to access relevant documents and to conduct interviews with prisoners and staff. b. Both the Named Plaintiffs and unnamed class members (either with or without representation by class counsel) must arbitrate claims that the Department is not in compliance with the consent decree. c. After five years, the Department may request termination of the consent decree, which will terminate after six years unless plaintiffs request, and the court grants, an extension. d. The parties may mutually amend the agreement. The parties agree to re-evaluate deadlines in the transition plan if Alabama passes legislation to construct new prison facilities. e. The Department will make good-faith efforts to obtain necessary funding to comply with the agreement. f. Finally, the agreement states that the Department will pay Plaintiffs' attorneys $250,000 in fees and costs, as well as additional fees of $195 per hour (subject to caps) for monitoring services, and fees for any litigation necessary to enforce the resulting consent decree. Additionally, as in Phase 1, the parties agreed that no part of the agreement applies to death-row prisoners. Finally, the agreement is predicated on -- and the Defendants consent to -- the certification of a settlement class consisting of any current or future inmate in the physical custody of ADOC who has a disability as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 12102 and 29 U.S.C. Section 705(9)(B) relating to or arising from mental disease, illness, or defect. The Court found class certification and final approval of the agreement appropriate. Judge Thompson explained that as was the case during Phase 1, the parties' settlement of the Phase 2A ADA claim reflects the Alabama Department of Corrections' commitment to making manifest the rights of disabled prisoners in its custody; it represents the shouldering of significant responsibility, and presents an equally significant opportunity, by delineating a years' long process of Censuring compliance with the dictates of federal disability law. The Court understands the Department's investment in this process to be genuine, and commends it for it. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 opinion is available at https://is.gd/ZIvo2h from Leagle.com. Edward Braggs, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh -- awalsh@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC. Edward Braggs, Plaintiff, represented by Brooke Menschel, Southern Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard, Southern Poverty Law Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria V. Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Patricia Clotfelter -- pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty Law Center, William Glassell Somerville, III, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. Tedrick Brooks, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Brooke Menschel, Southern Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard, Southern Poverty Law Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria V. Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Patricia Clotfelter, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty Law Center, William Glassell Somerville, III, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. Gary Lee Broyles, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Brooke Menschel, Southern Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard, Southern Poverty Law Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria V. Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Patricia Clotfelter, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty Law Center, William Glassell Somerville, III, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. Chandler Clements, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Brooke Menschel, Southern Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard, Southern Poverty Law Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria V. Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Patricia Clotfelter, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty Law Center, William Glassell Somerville, III, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. Christopher Gilbert, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Brooke Menschel, Southern Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard, Southern Poverty Law Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria V. Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Patricia Clotfelter, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty Law Center, William Glassell Somerville, III, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. Dwight Hagood, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Brooke Menschel, Southern Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard, Southern Poverty Law Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria V. Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Patricia Clotfelter, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty Law Center, William Glassell Somerville, III, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. Sylvester Hartley, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Brooke Menschel, Southern Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard, Southern Poverty Law Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria V. Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Patricia Clotfelter, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty Law Center, William Glassell Somerville, III, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. Christopher Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Brooke Menschel, Southern Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard, Southern Poverty Law Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria V. Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Patricia Clotfelter, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty Law Center, William Glassell Somerville, III, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. Brandon Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Brooke Menschel, Southern Poverty Law Center, Ebony Glenn Howard, Southern Poverty Law Center, Eunice Cho, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria V. Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Patricia Clotfelter, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Southern Poverty Law Center, William Glassell Somerville, III, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. Alabama Department of Corrections, Defendant, represented by David Randall Boyd -- dboyd@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, John W. Naramore -- jnaramore@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, John Garland Smith -- jgsmith@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, Anne Adams Hill, Alabama Department of Corrections, Elizabeth Anne Sees, Alabama Department of Corrections, Joseph Gordon Stewart, Jr., Alabama Dept of Corrections, Steven C. Corhern -- scorhern@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham & William Richard Lunsford - - lpotter@maynardcooper.com. Ruth Naglich, Defendant, represented by Anne Adams Hill, Alabama Department of Corrections, David Randall Boyd, Balch & Bingham LLP, Elizabeth Anne Sees, Alabama Department of Corrections, Evan Patrick Moltz -- rbennett@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., John Garland Smith, Balch & Bingham LLP, Joseph Gordon Stewart, Jr., Alabama Dept of Corrections, Luther Maxwell Dorr, Jr. -- rdorr@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Matthew Reeves -- mreeves@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, Mitesh Bansilal Shah -- mshah@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC, Steven C. Corhern, Balch & Bingham, William Richard Lunsford, Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, Melissa K. Marler -- mmarler@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale PC, Michael Paul Huff -- mhuff@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale PC & Stephen Clarence Rogers -- srogers@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper and Gale PC. Jefferson S. Dunn, Defendant, represented by Anne Adams Hill, Alabama Department of Corrections, David Randall Boyd, Balch & Bingham LLP, Elizabeth Anne Sees, Alabama Department of Corrections, Evan Patrick Moltz, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., John Garland Smith, Balch & Bingham LLP, Joseph Gordon Stewart, Jr., Alabama Dept of Corrections, Luther Maxwell Dorr, Jr., Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Matthew Reeves, Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, Mitesh Bansilal Shah, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC, Steven C. Corhern, Balch & Bingham, William Richard Lunsford, Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, Melissa K. Marler, Maynard, Cooper & Gale PC, Michael Paul Huff, Maynard Cooper & Gale PC & Stephen Clarence Rogers, Maynard Cooper and Gale PC. MHM Correctional Services, Inc., Movant, represented by Brett T. Lane -- djohnson@mhm-services.com -- MHM Services, Inc. & Deana Johnson, MHM Services, Inc., pro hac vice. Corizon Health, Inc., Movant, represented by Melissa K. Marler, Maynard, Cooper & Gale PC, Stephen Clarence Rogers, Maynard Cooper and Gale PC & William Richard Lunsford, Maynard Cooper & Gale PC. Kim Thomas, Movant, represented by Evan Patrick Moltz, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Melissa K. Marler, Maynard, Cooper & Gale PC, Mitesh Bansilal Shah, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC, Stephen Clarence Rogers, Maynard Cooper and Gale PC & William Richard Lunsford, Maynard Cooper & Gale PC. ALBANY MOLECULAR: Faces "Eyre" Suit Over Carlyle Merger ------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL EYRE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALBANY MOLECULAR RESEARCH INC., THOMAS E. D'AMBRA, PH.D, WILLIAM S. MARTH, DAVID H. DEMING, GERARDO GUTIERREZ FUENTES, KENNETH P. HAGEN, ANTHONY J. MADDALUNA, FERNANDO NAPOLITANO, AND KEVIN O'CONNOR, Case No. 1:17-cv-00932-UNA (D. Del., July 11, 2017), is brought on behalf the public holders of the common stock of Albany arising from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger between Albany and affiliates of The Carlyle Group and affiliates of GTCR. On June 5, 2017, the Company's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which each share of common stock of Albany will be converted into the right to receive $21.75 in cash. Albany is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal executive offices at in Albany, New York. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Albany is a contract research and manufacturing company that provides drug discovery, development, and manufacturing services. The Company supplies a range of services and technologies supporting the discovery and development of pharmaceutical products, the manufacturing of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients and drug product for new and generic drugs, as well as research, development and manufacturing for the agrochemical and other industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com ALLIANCE ENERGY: Ct. Conditionally Certifies Class in "Dearmond" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lance M. Africk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the case captioned DAVID DEARMOND, v. ALLIANCE ENERGY SERVICES, LLC. SECTION I, Civil Action No. 17-2222 (E.D. La.). At the outset, the Court observes that Alliance concedes that it failed to comply with the FLSA in at least some regards. As Alliance's own general counsel admits, hourly employees working on jobs where the Alliance customer did not allow Alliance to charge time for safety meetings were not paid for those safety meetings. So, given that concession, Alliance really does not have an argument that the policy or practice is purely personal to the Plaintiff. Instead, what Alliance tries to argue is that (i) the policy or practice is not widespread enough to justify a collective action; (ii) Alliance's effectuation of a DOL supervised settlement, which included the mailing of checks to supposedly cure any payroll deficiencies, means that there are no longer any potential class members other than the Named Plaintiff; and (iii) Alliance's unaccepted offer of judgment moots the case. The Court held those arguments fail. First, the mere fact that the policy or practice may not have affected every employee at Alliance is not enough, at the conditional certification stage, to bar conditional certification. Second, Alliance cannot rely on the fact that two of the present opt-in Plaintiffs cashed checks sent to them by Alliance to establish that the Named Plaintiff is the only individual with a remaining claim. Third, the unaccepted offer of judgment provided by the Defendant does not moot the case. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied his limited burden at the conditional certification stage, and this case should proceed through discovery as a collective action. Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. The Court conditionally certifies this matter as a collective action with respect to all current and former hourly paid offshore employees who attended a safety meeting who worked for the Defendant at any location throughout the United States from three years prior to the date of this order to the present. The Defendant will provide counsel for the Plaintiff with the class list within 10 days of the date of the Order. The Plaintiff's counsel will mail a copy of the "notice of rights" and "consent form" attached to their motion via regular U.S. Mail and via electronic mail to all persons contained on the class list within ten days of receiving the class list. Simultaneous with the first mailing, the Plaintiff's counsel will send a text message to the class members with a link to the notice of rights and consent form. Thirty days after the first mailing, the Plaintiff's counsel will send a reminder notice to all class members who have not opted into this case. The class members will also be given the option to execute their consent forms electronically online. All consent forms will be returned to the Plaintiff's counsel, who in turn will be responsible for filing them with the Court. The class members will have 60 days from the date of the mailing of the notice to file their notice of consent opting-in to this lawsuit as Plaintiffs, unless good cause is shown to merit extending the deadline. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order and reasons is available at https://is.gd/uNEYVt from Leagle.com. David DeArmond, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Broussard Landry, III, Robert B. Landry, III, PLC. David DeArmond, Plaintiff, represented by Beatriz Sosa Morris, Sosa Morris Neuman Attorneys at Law, pro hac vice & John Anthony Neuman, Sosa Morris Neuman Attorneys at Law, pro hac vice. Tyrel Credeur, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Broussard Landry, III, Robert B. Landry, III, PLC, Beatriz Sosa Morris, Sosa Morris Neuman Attorneys at Law, pro hac vice & John Anthony Neuman, Sosa Morris Neuman Attorneys at Law, pro hac vice. Dustin Nichol, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Broussard Landry, III, Robert B. Landry, III, PLC, Beatriz Sosa Morris, Sosa Morris Neuman Attorneys at Law, pro hac vice & John Anthony Neuman, Sosa Morris Neuman Attorneys at Law, pro hac vice. Alliance Energy Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jean-Paul Layrisson, Scandurro & Layrisson, L.L.C., Krista M. Eleew, Scandurro & Layrisson, L.L.C. & Timothy D. Scandurro, Scandurro & Layrisson, L.L.C.. AMERICO FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses "Hancock" Without Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned WILLIAM T. HANCOCK, SR., Individually and in a representative capacity on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICO FINANCIAL LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, INVESTORS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, and AMERICO LIFE, INC., Defendants, No. 7:16-CV-350-FL (E.D. N.C.) for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff commenced this action on Oct. 14, 2016, asserting claims against the Defendants arising from the sale by Defendant Investors Life of a policy of life insurance to him in February 1985, policy number 303 1163280, and collection of premiums thereunder through October 2013. The Plaintiff claims that Defendant Investors Life, in conjunction with the other Defendants who are allegedly affiliated entities, breached the terms of the policy. He asserts claims for breach of contract; declaration and injunction; equitable rescission; unjust enrichment and constructive trust; fraudulent suppression and concealment; fraud; breach of duties of good faith and fair dealing; unfair and deceptive trade practices; and violations of North Carolina's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") act. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages and certification of the case as a class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss on Dec. 9, 2016. The Court stayed scheduling activities pending decision on the motion. The Plaintiff responded in opposition to the instant motion on Jan. 20, 2017, and the Defendants replied on Feb. 3, 2017. The Defendant seeks dismissal of the Plaintiff's tort claims on the basis that they are not distinct from breach of contract, and on the basis that the Plaintiff has failed to plead them with the requisite specificity, among other grounds. Judge Flanagan agrees as to both grounds for dismissal and thus need not reach the additional grounds raised by the Defendants. Judge Flanagan explained that the Plaintiff's tort claims are based upon the alleged concealment by the Defendants of certain facts concerning the operation of the policy. These alleged acts of concealment, however, are premised upon the terms contained in the policy and the interpretation of those terms. Whether or not the policy permitted the Defendants to undertake the actions allegedly concealed is a matter of interpretation of the terms of the policy, which must be relegated to the arena of contract law. In this manner, all of the Plaintiff's tort claims are an attempt to refashion alleged breaches of the policy into torts. In addition, to the extent the Plaintiff asserts concealment or misrepresentation outside the policy, he has not pleaded with the requisite particularity the asserted acts of concealment or misrepresentation forming the basis for his tort claims. In sum, the Plaintiff's tort claims fail as a matter of law and must be dismissed. For these reasons, Judge Flanagan granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss and the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6. He directed the clerk to close this case. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/K5dLh0 from Leagle.com. William T. Hancock, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by H. Forest Horne, Jr., Martin & Jones, PLLC. William T. Hancock, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Karl Joseph Amelchenko, Martin & Jones, PLLC & John Alan Jones, Martin & Jones, PLLC. Americo Financial Life and Annuity Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Carl C. Scherz -- cscherz@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Debbie Weston Harden -- dharden@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Jackson R. Price -- japrice@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Meredith J. McKee, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Roger B. Cowie -- rcowie@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP & Taylor F. Brinkman, Locke Lord LLP. Investors Life Insurance Company of North America, Defendant, represented by Debbie Weston Harden, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Jackson R. Price, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Meredith J. McKee, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Roger B. Cowie, Locke Lord LLP & Taylor F. Brinkman, Locke Lord LLP. Americo Life, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carl C. Scherz, Locke Lord LLP, Debbie Weston Harden, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Jackson R. Price, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Meredith J. McKee, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Roger B. Cowie, Locke Lord LLP & Taylor F. Brinkman, Locke Lord LLP. ANZ SECURITIES: Class Suit Face Tougher Road After Ruling --------------------------------------------------------- Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that class-action lawsuits, an important tool for public pension funds and other investors to address perceived wrongs, could become less viable options following a Supreme Court ruling and new positions from the departments of Labor and Justice. One of the biggest game changers came June 26, when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against the $323.6 billion California Public Employees' Retirement System, Sacramento, in a case challenging the amount of time investors have to decide whether to opt out of securities class-action lawsuits and pursue their cases alone. Instead of having a class complaint serve to "toll," or suspend, the statute of limitations for opting out to file individual claims, as CalPERS had argued, the Supreme Court opinion said the law "in clear terms" bars any action more than three years after the securities offering. The CalPERS decision "did change things," said attorney David Wertheimer -- david.wertheimer@hoganlovells.com -- a New York-based partner at Hogan Lovells LLP, who represents public company defendants in securities class actions. "It likely changed the mindset of institutional investors, who are now evaluating their claims." The issue was pivotal enough to prompt an amicus brief from an international group of 75 pension funds and other institutional investors with a collective $4 trillion in assets, including the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems, state and municipal U.S. pension funds, and large overseas investors such as the $468 billion APG Asset Management, $351 billion Aegon Asset Management and $210 billion PGGM Investments in the Netherlands. Blair A. Nicholas, San Diego-based managing partner at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, who filed the group's brief, said the tolling issue "is extremely important for efficiency and resource purposes." 1974 precedent Until 2013, investors relied on a 1974 Supreme Court decision in American Pipe & Construction Co. vs. Utah, which held that the commencement of a securities class action preserves the timeliness of individual claims while a court decides whether to grant class- action status. That changed in 2013 when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Police & Fire Retirement System vs. IndyMac MBS Inc. that the American Pipe decision applies only to the statute of limitations and not to the statute governing repose, which creates an absolute three-year deadline for filing an action. In a dissenting opinion in the CalPERS case, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited the pension fund's argument that the 5-4 decision could "gum up the works of class litigation" by giving defendants an incentive to slow walk pre-certification proceedings until the clock runs out on potential opt-outs. CalPERS spokeswoman Megan White said the ruling, while disappointing, "reiterates the importance of remaining vigilant" about future securities class-action cases and deciding whether to opt out. Mr. Wertheimer cited one study from NERA Economic Consulting that showed the median time for class certification decisions to be made is 2.5 years after cases are filed, which leaves little time under the new three-year deadline. "That statistic suggests that people are going to have to make tactical decisions much earlier. They will not have the luxury of deciding later," he said. NERA also found that a record 300 securities class actions were initiated in 2016, a 32% increase over 2015. Hogan Lovells partner Christopher Pickens -- christopher.pickens@hoganlovells.com -- noted there are pending cases that will soon be coming up against the three-year statute of repose, "and you have to start making those decisions today. I expect those discussions are now being had at plaintiffs' firms." Jeff Mahoney, general counsel for the Council of Institutional Investors in Washington, whose general members have a combined $3 trillion in assets, noted that while pension funds are often passive investors without a direct case, "they are going to have think about establishing new procedures with respect to their oversight of class-action litigation within three years of a securities offering to protect their right to opt out and pursue an individual case." Going it alone "could be a good idea" if there is a potentially larger recovery, he said. "The bottom line is, it's going to take more effort." The Supreme Court will address class actions in at least two more cases involving public pension funds when members start their new term this fall. Disclosure issues On the question of whether an issuer's duty to disclosure certain information allows for class-action lawsuits, Leidos Inc. is challenging a decision in favor of the $31 billion Indiana Public Retirement System, Indianapolis. At issue is the Securities and Exchange Commission's regulation S-K, which requires companies to disclose "any known trends or any known demands, commitments, events or uncertainties that will result in or that are reasonably likely to result in the registrant's liquidity increasing or decreasing in any material way." Leidos petitioned the Supreme Court to decide whether that duty to disclose allows shareholders to file lawsuits under Section 10(b), the antifraud provision of the Securities and Exchange Act. "It is an interesting case with a lot of ramifications," said Mr. Wertheimer of Hogan Lovells. "There are a lot of issues that could be swept up by the court's recognition of a disclosure duty. (Such a decision) has the potential for public companies to be second-guessed by the plaintiffs' bar." In Cyan Inc. vs. Beaver County (Pa.) Employees Retirement Fund, the Supreme Court will consider whether state courts can hear some investor lawsuits, revisiting a 1998 securities law that limits jurisdiction of state courts in certain securities violations. After purchasing Cyan stock, the $277 million pension fund claimed that documentation in the initial public offering allegedly included altered and misleading statements. A California appeals court ruled that state courts do have jurisdiction, and the U.S. solicitor general's amicus brief urged the Supreme Court to resolve an issue "that has generated confusion in lower courts." The CalPERS vs. Anz Securities Inc. decision may increase the number of opt-outs in federal securities class-action cases, including some filed in state courts. And, in the case of foreign securities litigation, "state courts have become a potential venue for pension plans," said Mr. Mahoney of CII, in light of a 2010 Supreme Court decision in Morrison vs. National Australia Bank Ltd. that U.S. law against securities fraud does not apply to certain foreign-issued securities. The federal government's position on class-action lawsuits is in a state of flux as well. In a brief filed on July 3 in a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals challenge to the Labor Department's new fiduciary rule, the Justice Department on behalf of the DOL argued that the rule should be upheld except for the part allowing class actions against financial advisers. Government lawyers said they would not defend the provision that allows investors to file class- action suits against financial advisers who violate the rule's best-interest standard. Not as significant Kent Mason, a partner with Davis & Harman LLP who represents several major financial institutions, points out that the government decision to not defend the provision is not as significant as it might seem because the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority precludes broker-dealers from requiring clients to waive the right to pursue class actions. To avoid creating new class actions, Mr. Mason said, the Department of Labor would need to eliminate the fiduciary rule's best-interest contract requirement. In June, the Justice Department also reversed its position on banning class actions in workplace arbitration agreements. In an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall said the department "reconsidered the issue and has reached the opposite conclusion" from one taken by the department during the Obama administration. [GN] APPLE INC: Bid to Dismiss "Davidson" Suit Partly Granted -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned THOMAS DAVIDSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-4942-LHK (N.D. Cal.). On Aug. 27, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendant that alleged causes of action under (i) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (ii) Unfair Competition Law; (iii) False Advertisement Law; (iv) common law fraud; (v) negligent misrepresentation; (vi) unjust enrichment; (vii) breach of implied warranty; (viii) violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act ("Magnusson-Moss Act"); and (ix) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. On Oct. 7, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint that added several named Plaintiffs and added causes of action under the consumer fraud statutes of Illinois, New Jersey, Florida, Connecticut, Texas, Colorado, Michigan, New York, and Washington. On Dec. 2, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SACC"), which added a Utah Plaintiff and a cause of action under Utah's consumer fraud statute. They sought to represent a Nationwide Class of all persons or entities in the United States that purchased an Apple iPhone 6 or 6 Plus. Alternatively, they sought to represent state sub-classes. On Jan. 6, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the SACC. On Feb. 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On Feb. 17, 2017, the Defendant filed a Reply. On March 14, 2017, the Court dismissed all 10 of the selected claims with leave to amend. On March 21, 2017, in response to the Court's order, the parties filed an amended joint list of causes of action to litigate for purposes of the second round motions to dismiss. The Plaintiffs elected to litigate their common law breach of warranty claims under Illinois law. The Defendant elected to litigate its common law fraud claim under Pennsylvania law. On April 4, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Class Action Complaint ("TACC"), alleging violations of various state consumer fraud statutes, common law fraud, and breach of express and implied warranty. On April 18, 2017, Apple moved to dismiss the TACC. On May 16, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On June 6, 2017, Apple filed a reply. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the TACC. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' requests for injunctive relief is granted with prejudice as to Plaintiffs Davidson, Borzymowski, Muilenburg, Petty, Bon, Corbett, and Pajaro, and denied as to Plaintiffs Brown, Baker, Cleary, Benelhachemi, Bauer, and Heirloom Estate Services. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; Washington Consumer Protection Act; Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Colorado Consumer Protection Act; and common law fraud claims is granted with prejudice to the extent that these claims are premised on an affirmative misrepresentation theory. The Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; Washington Consumer Protection Act; Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Colorado Consumer Protection Act; and common law fraud claims to the extent that these claims are premised on a fraudulent omissions theory. However, it granted with prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for fraud under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Pennsylvania common law. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of express warranty under Illinois law is granted with prejudice. The Court also granted with prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of implied warranty under Illinois law. It granted with prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Magnusson-Moss Act claim based on the Plaintiffs' express and implied warranty claims under Illinois law. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/Lu7Bsu from Leagle.com. Thomas Davidson, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Greg Coleman Law PC. Thomas Davidson, Plaintiff, represented by David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry LLC, pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP. Todd Cleary, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Greg Coleman Law PC, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry LLC, pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP. Jun Bai, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Greg Coleman Law PC, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry LLC, pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP. William Bon, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Greg Coleman Law PC, Stephen Gerard Larson, Larson O'Brien LLP, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry LLC, pro hac vice, Richard Christian Harlan, Sidley Austin LLP & Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP. Adam Benelhachemi, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Greg Coleman Law PC, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry LLC, pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP. Brooke Corbett, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Greg Coleman Law PC, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry LLC, pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP. Matt Muilenburg, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Greg Coleman Law PC, Stephen Gerard Larson, Larson O'Brien LLP, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry LLC, pro hac vice, Richard Christian Harlan, Sidley Austin LLP & Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP. Kathleen Baker, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Greg Coleman Law PC, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry LLC, pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP. Taylor Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Greg Coleman Law PC, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry LLC, pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP. Apple, Inc., Defendant, represented by Arturo J. Gonzalez, Morrison & Foerster LLP, David Ramraj Singh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Alexandria Armida Amezcua, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Christopher Leonard Robinson, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Diane P. Sullivan, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Penelope Athene Preovolos, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Tiffany Cheung, Morrison & Foerster LLP. ARCONIC INC: Faces "Tripson" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Tripson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arconic Inc. and Klaus Kleinfeld, Case No. 1:17-cv- 05369 (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose (a) that Arconic was knowingly selling Reynobond PE for use in construction projects where the product was to be used in a manner that the Company knew was unsafe and presented a fire hazard; (b) that Arconic's marketing and sales of highly-flammable Reynobond PE sales for use in high-rise tower projects across the U.K. and other countries directly conflicted with the purported strong culture of safety, ethics and legal compliance that the Company claimed to have and exposed Arconic to hundreds of millions of dollars in potential civil and criminal liability and reputational harm; (c) that Arconic's own oft repeated claims that Reynobond PE was "a fully tested product, with building-code approvals throughout the world," coupled with its strong assurances of effective global safety and integrity practices, concealed from investors the immense risk Arconic had assumed through its sales and marketing practices; and (d) as a result, Defendants' statements about Arconic's business, operations and financial prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Arconic Inc. is engaged in the engineering and manufacturing of aluminum and other lightweight metals into products used worldwide in the aerospace, automotive, commercial transportation, packaging, building and construction, oil and gas, defense, consumer electronics, and industrial industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C. 300 Mt. Lebanon Boulevard, Suite 206-B Pittsburgh, PA 15234-1507 Telephone: (412) 391-5164 Facsimile: (412) 471-1033 E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com ARIZONA: Corrections Dept. Fails to Fix Health Care Issues ---------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Weill, writing for Daily Beast, reports that Arizona inmates went to court to describe their poor medical treatment: hours spent waiting for nurses outdoors in dangerous heat; cells so hot, inmates could barely breathe. Within days of their testimony, half of those inmates reported retaliation by corrections officers. On July 14, four inmates went to court with allegations that could cost the Arizona Department of Corrections more than $2 million in penalties. The state prison system was flouting its basic rules for medical care, the inmates testified, putting people with health conditions at serious risk. But when they returned from court, the inmates found themselves in an even more dangerous prison environment, their lawyers claim in a new court filing. The case has its roots in a 2012 lawsuit by Arizona inmates who also accused the state of lax medical practices, which they claimed resulted in unnecessary death and injury within the prison system. The case, which ballooned into a class action on behalf of 33,000 Arizona inmates, was eventually settled in 2014, with the Department of Corrections agreeing to strict new health standards. But inmates claim the Department of Corrections has reneged on its promises to fix its health code. In advance of the July 14 hearing, lawyers compiled a report detailing "2,127 separate incidents" from June 14 and July 11, in which the Department of Corrections allegedly failed its own medical standards. Among these alleged incidents were more than 1,100 cases in which inmates either did not receive their medications on time, or did not receive their medications at all. The report also detailed hundreds of cases in which medical reports went ignored for days or weeks. During the July 14 hearing in a Phoenix court, four inmates described the Department of Corrections' alleged violations in chilling detail. Instead of receiving prompt medical care, inmates are made to wait long hours outdoors in order to receive their medications, they testified. "If you leave the area, you risk losing your place in line," Mark Blocksom, an inmate at a state facility testified on July 14, the Phoenix New Times reported. Mr. Blocksom, who receives treatment for HIV, hepatitis C, and other ailments, said he has waited outdoors upwards of three hours. Other inmates have waited seven hours to see a nurse, he said. [GN] ASIMRAS LLC: "Troitino" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Carlos Picans Troitino and Janet Elgueta, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Asimras LLC and Antonio Gomes, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04936 (D.N.J., Jul7 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Defendants owned, operated and controlled a bar/grill located at 376 Ferry Street, Newark, New Jersey 07105 under the name "Paleio Bar & Grill." Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed as bartenders and servers, but they also were required to perform other restaurant worker duties such as cleaning, stocking, painting, table preparation, going on errands and occasionally delivering food. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Sara J. Isaacson, Esq. Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: sisaacson@faillacelaw.com ATKINS NUTRITIONALS: Sued Over Misleading "Net Carbs" Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHANA GARCIA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. ATKINS NUTRITIONALS, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-05232-JFK (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2017), challenges the Defendant's alleged deceptive practice of marketing its food products with "Net Carbs" claims to mislead consumers about those products' impact on blood sugar levels. The founder of Atkins Nutritionals, Dr. Robert Coleman Atkins, was an early pioneer of the low-carbohydrate approach to dieting before it became popular and accepted by an increasing number of medical professionals and researchers. Traditional dieting approaches focused on limiting calories and fat. Atkins Nutritionals, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with its headquarters in Denver, Colorado. The Company develops, markets and sells its extensive line of energy bars, snack food, frozen meal, and shake products under the "ATKINS(R)" brand name throughout the United States, through numerous retail and online outlets such as Target, Duane Reade, CVS, Rite Aid, and Amazon.com.[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 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com anne@leelitigation.com AUSTRALIA: Indonesian Cattle Cruelty Shown at Class Action Trial ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colin Bettles, writing for North Queensland Register, reports that day three of the Indonesian live cattle ban class action trial was dominated by the defence presenting extensive and intimate details of animal cruelty practices that underpinned the government's sudden decision to cut off trade. Lights in the court room were dimmed as Defence Senior Counsel Neil Williams showed selected extracts from the controversial ABC Four Corners episode of May 30, 2011 "A Bloody Business" which was also introduced into trial evidence. Graphic images of cattle mistreatment ignited the public uproar that applied intense pressure on the former Labor government and a few days after the ABC broadcast the then Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig eventually suspended the entire market for up to six months. The Federal Court case is being held in Sydney and seeking to prove misfeasance by the commonwealth -- claiming about $600 million in damages -- in Mr Ludwig's signing of the second control order that shut trade, to try and address animal welfare standards in Indonesian abattoirs. On day three, the plaintiff's Senior Counsel Noel Hutley spent the day presenting his argument and allowed several Four Corners extracts to be shown to the court room. But he objected to an attempt by Mr Williams to produce extracts from another batch of "extended footage" that the defence said was supplied to the minister's department, on May 31, 2011. Mr Hutley said "we don't know what the Minister saw" and "we don't know what anybody saw'. "We don't know when it came and we require that to be properly proved," he said. "We want proof that what you're going to be shown was what was seen by the Minister, not general statements about it -- in press conferences. "It's by no means clear what the Minister saw . . . and the Minister was in a perfect position to give that evidence." As well as exerts several exerts from Four Corners, Mr Williams also read extensively from the transcript of the ABC broadcast with regular reference to central players in the controversy including leading industry representatives and Animal Australia's investigator Lyn White, the RSPCA Australia and leading animal behaviour expert Temple Grandin. Justice Rares said the FourCorners report "exposes horrific abuse faced by Australian cattle in Indonesia". Use of various restraint boxes installed in Indonesian abattoirs by Meat and Livestock Australia, in contributing to poor animal welfare outcomes during slaughter, like cattle heads slapping on concrete after tripping up, was also discussed extensively by Mr Williams during day three. The independent expert's report of May 2010 -- released in January 2011 -- that investigated animal welfare standards in the Indonesian cattle market, and RSPCA's response to it in communications, as a template for the animal mistreatment seen on the FourCorners episode, was another central point of evidence presentation. The report's executive summary was read out during the July 21 proceedings which said, "Animal welfare was generally good. Occasional incidents of noncompliance with the OIE code were observed and recommendations to address these are made through the report. Australian cattle generally found to be coping well in Indonesia with conditions to which they're exposed". But RSPCA's response was also produced as evidence which provided a different view on the concern about welfare standards. "From the information available in the report, it's clear that the majority of animals observed, and likely the majority of animals exported, were subjected to significant levels of pain, fear and distress during their handling and slaughter," it said. "The scale and significance of the animal welfare issues described in the report show that, in terms of risks to animal welfare, the situation in Indonesia is equal to the Middle East. "Given this, it's not a trade that the RSPCA believes should continue." Analysis by RSPCA chief scientist Dr Bidda Jones of the video footage taken by Animals Australia in March 2011 and shown in the ABC broadcast was also presented with records of critical meetings and communications between the two groups, with the minister's office, leading into the second control order being signed. Mr Williams said RSPCA was "not primarily an activist organisation in the way that many of the groups under the umbrella of Animals Australia are". "RSPCA has a much wider role, and it's, of course, long established and widely respected," he said. Mr Williams read a letter from RSPCA pressuring the government to ban the Indonesian market following the ABC broadcast, expressing views also held by Animals Australia about the market's pitfalls and government's suggested response. "As you were informed today by Tom Maguire of the Australian Meat Industry Council the failure of the Government to appropriately address the situation in Indonesia means the community is losing confidence in domestic livestock industry, is also impacting on our international reputation in key export markets," RSPCA's letter said. "The only option the government has available to it is to immediately halt the live trade in the interests of the whole Australian meat and cattle industry. "As previously conveyed, the implementation of the export control orders that relate to the 12 abattoirs will in no way serve to protect the welfare of cattle. "There is no traceability within the supply chain. "Even if animals could be prevented from being supplied to these abattoirs, they would simply be slaughtered at a neighbouring facility where they will be subjected to equally brutal treatment." Who cares what others say it's about the minister's decision Justice Rares however disputed Mr William's attempt to use evidence of a press conference with the animal welfare organisations and two independent members of parliament -- SA Senator Nick Xenophon and Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie, pressuring the government to ban the trade. Mr Williams referred to comments made by Senator Xenophon at the press conference, saying, "these are boats that have to be stopped. What we know is the system in Indonesia is so broken, so systematically flawed, that the only sensible response is to have an immediate moratorium". But Justice Rares said there was "no evidence" it had been publicised. He said there was also "no evidence" it had come to the Minister's attention or the Prime Minister or a cabinet colleague who said, "Look at what Senator Xenophon said. You know, you've got to do something', or, 'This is what you've got to do'". "I mean, the fact that a whole lot of people in the community say, 'You should do this or that', doesn't mean that the action you ultimately do is more or less rational because a whole lot of other people say that's what you should do," he said. But Mr Williams said the joint press conference was between the RSPCA, Senator Xenophon and Mr Wilkie, who made "significant, strong public statements" calling for the banning. "That was part of the context in which the Minister and the department were called upon to assess what steps to take -- that's the basis on which we tender it," he said. However, Justice Rares said there was a "huge amount" of public pressure on the Minister to make a decision and a variety of views were being expressed in the community about what his decision should be but "I don't care what all these other people said he should do". "It's his job to make the decision, and if he has properly exercised his functions, he has . . .done nothing wrong and if he hasn't properly exercised his functions, then I say the decision is invalid and then there's the next question as to whether it's a decision that . . . is a misfeasance of his office, which is potentially a different question," he said. "But the fact that there is a lot of political pressure on him . . . that doesn't make his decision rational or irrational, good or bad. "It just says, as I don't need to be told in a great deal of evidence, there's a lot of pressure coming on about him having to do something about this because it revealed a very shocking and awful situation in Indonesia. "At the moment I'm not accepting this in evidence." Suspension a cabinet decision? Late in the day, Justice Rares also said he understood the decision -- to ultimately ban the trade for up to six months -- was made by cabinet and it was something Mr Williams or Mr Hutley "will need to disabuse me of". "Once the cabinet came to a view, the Minister went to implement that view," he said. "This went to cabinet. "I don't know what happened in cabinet and that's not the subject of evidence, but the inference I would draw is that the Minister's decision was the cabinet's decision and he implemented it." But Mr Williams said "No, your Honour" and "what emerged there was a process of departmental advice". He said on Monday June 6, 2011, draft recommendations were sent through to the Minister's office which was a "developmental proposal" to the Minister and "it wasn't a cabinet submission". "The Minister has a discussion with his cabinet colleagues late on the afternoon of June 6 and then proceeds through the next day to take a decision," he said. "He plainly proposes to consult with his cabinet colleagues late on the afternoon of June 6. "There are then further steps taken the next day and he takes a decision, which we will show your Honour is consistent with one of the suite of three recommendations that were sent later on the Monday, in the middle of the day on the Monday, containing three different options. "And he takes a decision which is consistent with the first of those, option A. "But in terms of this being a cabinet decision, there's no evidence to support that, and the evidence is inconsistent with it. "It shows a process of departmental advising to their Minister who, being a lawyer, appreciated that he was the person with the power. "It would not be a great leap for your Honour to conclude that if the cabinet had told him that they didn't agree with a proposal he was taking forward, that he might not have made the decision he ultimately did. "But there isn't a basis on which an inference can properly be drawn that there was a cabinet decision taken to this effect, rather a process of consultation, and the Minister's decision was made, in fact, the following night when he signed the order." But Mr Hutley said "that's a disputed fact" with the debate then focussed on when the actual second control order was signed and registered to take effect. Justice Rares said "It was registered on the 7th. Therefore, it was made on the 6th. It comes into effect the next day". Mr Hutley said "And there's a note saying he had made it that evening of the 6th -- the night of the 6th he made the decision". But Mr Williams said "that hasn't been my understanding at all". "They were registered at 9.30 pm on Tuesday, June 7 and then there were the two instruments, each of which is signed and each of which is dated June 7." Mr Hutley said the chronology produced by the department -- by the advisors -- said the Minister made the decision to suspend the trade on the evening of the 6th. Justice Rares said "The decision antedates the registration. It's coming into effect is when it's registered". "If you look at the entry on the 6th, the Foreign Minister, the Trade Minister, and I don't know what Minister Macklin's office did, but the Foreign Minister was Mr Rudd, the Trade Minister was Mr Emerson, from my recollection," he said. "They were all told that night and then they were going to talk to people and draft orders to suspend were sent to the office after midnight on July 24. "Issues needed to be resolved, six months or ongoing. "So they had made the decision, but you say it hasn't been the -- the six months were ongoing, that left that all to happen on the 7th. "As it must have, because that's when it was signed." Mr Williams said "to be clear, we say that the Minister may well have reached a process of mental reasoning, and the evidence suggests that he did, on the night of the 6th that he would make a control order". AMIC back the ban Mr Williams also presented evidence of written communications to the government from AMIC following the ABC broadcast, supporting the ban and disagreeing with the industry's plan of attack using facilities already able to process cattle to acceptable standards. "The announcement of a suspension of live export of cattle to the 11 abattoirs does not, in our opinion, adequately address this issue given that live export go to feedlots in Indonesia for finishing before slaughter," a letter read out by Mr Williams said. "AMIC questions how the Australian government will enforce this ban. "AMIC recommends that all live shipments to Indonesia be suspended until there is in place an agreement and a process, including enforcement of whole of life animal welfare standards which are the equivalent of the world class standards applied in Australia. "Without adequate supply chain control, AMIC is concerned that these animal welfare issues in Indonesia will remain, thus presenting further risk not only to the live export trade but, more importantly, to the reputation of the Australian meat and livestock industry." Another communication with the minister's office at the time said AMIC "strongly recommends" the government not accept the industry's proposal in response to animal welfare issues that addresses the processing of only 40 per cent of the current shipments of live cattle to Indonesia. "There is no advice on the proposed slaughter arrangement for the majority 60 per cent of live export cattle shipments, only five of the proposed 25 plants are using stunning of the cattle effectively and consistently prior to slaughter," the communication said. The story Indonesian cattle cruelty exhibited at class action trial first appeared on Farm Online. [GN] AUSTRALIA: NT Cattlemen's Association Happy with Case Progress -------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Manicaros, writing for NT News, reports that territory cattlemen are getting their day in the court as a landmark class action stemming from the live export ban in 2011 returns to the Federal Court. NT Cattlemen's Association chief executive Tracey Hayes said they were happy with the way the case was progressing so far. "The people of the North are getting their day in court," she said. If cattlemen are successful, compensation for the case could run into hundreds of millions of dollars, with the Commonwealth already conceding loss was suffered. During hearings on July 21 there was argument regarding the admissibility of evidence and the decision of the responsible minister not to give testimony. The Brett Cattle Company v Ludwig case is before Justice Steven Rares. The Commonwealth's silk Neil Williams used a quote from crossbench Senator Nick Xenophon as support for then-Minister Joe Ludwig's decision to ban all live exports on June 7, 2011. "What we know is the system in Indonesia is so broken, so systematically flawed, that the only sensible response is to have an immediate moratorium," Senator Xenophon said. Mr Williams argued: "The relevance is this: the case that's put against us is that the minister was rushed or panicked into making a hasty and poorly conceived decision." Justice Rares said it was he who would determine if it was "rationally open". "Senator Xenophon is perfectly entitled to express his view ... but it's not evidence of a rational response. It's evidence of his response," he said. "Why is this admissible on the question of what a rational response is? "This is a case where you've chosen not to call him (Minister), that's perfectly all right, but if you're putting this to me that this is what was before him, I can't accept, on that basis, because I've got no evidence of it." [GN] AWP INC: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Luster" ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned PAULETTE LUSTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AWP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:16CV2613 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' for Conditional Certification, Court- Facilitated Notice and Expedited Discovery pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) and 83(b). The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated on Oct. 26, 2016, against the Defendant, alleging violations of Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). On Dec. 30, 2016, they filed a Motion for Conditional Certification, Expedited Opt-In Discovery and Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs. The Defendant employs traffic control specialists who direct traffic in temporary roadway construction zones. Employees are required to fuel the trucks and perform inspections to ensure the trucks are in good condition. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as traffic control specialists. Plaintiff Betty Haas drove a truck directly from her home to the work site and Plaintiff Luster drove a truck from the Defendant's place of business to the work site. They Plaintiffs allege that they were not paid for any time spent driving the Defendant's trucks to and from work sites, fueling trucks or performing inspections. They also allege they were not paid time and a half for hours worked over forty each week, despite being classified as non-exempt hourly workers. Twenty- three additional Plaintiffs have since opted in to the action. They filed a motion requesting conditional certification for the collective action, as well as expedited discovery and Court- facilitated notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs. The Defendant objects to conditional certification because the Plaintiffs have not identified an unlawful policy the class is subject to and conditional certification would not serve judicial economy because the putative class definition is overbroad. It also objects to their Motion for Expedited Discovery and Court-Facilitated Notice. Having considered the arguments and evidence submitted by the parties, the Court finds that at this stage of the proceedings, the Plaintiffs have met their "slight" burden and are entitled to conditional certification. They have satisfied their modest burden by their Declarations. This is sufficient to meet their "slight" burden to show that the members of the putative class were all subject to the same policy. Thus, even though the Plaintiffs did not respond directly to the Defendant's argument that the class definition is overbroad, the Defendant's argument does not support denying conditional certification at this stage. Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification of the FLSA claim. The Class is defined as all current and former traffic control specialists employed by AWP, Inc. at any time between October 26, 2013 and the present. If discovery shows that claimants are not similarly situated, the Court will decertify the class and dismiss the opt- in Plaintiffs without prejudice. Within 10 days of the Order, the parties will submit to the Court proposed language for notification and consent forms to be issued via First-Class Mail. The Plaintiffs seek to compel the Defendant to answer their interrogatories within 14 days. However, given the potential size and scope of the class, the Court ordered the Defendant to file with the Court no later than three days from the date of the Order a proposed time schedule to provide the Plaintiffs the names, last known addresses, last known phone numbers and dates of employment of employee class members. Upon receipt, the Court will order expedited discovery and will set an opt-in period. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/68lOp7 from Leagle.com. Paulette Luster, Plaintiff, represented by Chastity L. Christy, Lazzaro Law Firm. Paulette Luster, Plaintiff, represented by Lori M. Griffin, Lazzaro Law Firm & Anthony J. Lazzaro, Lazzaro Law Firm. Betty Haas, Plaintiff, represented by Chastity L. Christy, Lazzaro Law Firm, Lori M. Griffin, Lazzaro Law Firm & Anthony J. Lazzaro, Lazzaro Law Firm. AWP Inc., Defendant, represented by Carl H. Gluek -- cgluek@frantzward.com -- Frantz Ward, Ryan T. Smith -- rsmith@frantzward.com -- Frantz Ward & T. Merritt Bumpass, Jr. -- mbumpass@frantzward.com -- Frantz Ward. BANK OF AMERICA: "Castillo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Cindy R. Castillo, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America National Association, a North Carolina Corporation and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2017-00930099 (Cal. Super., July 6, 2017), seeks compensation resulting from failure to accurately pay overtime wages and minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and all wages earned and owed upon separation from Defendant's employ under California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Defendants own and operate full service banks, which serve the general public with call centers, throughout the United States, including California, where Castillo worked as a call center agent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory E. Mauro, Esq. JAMES R. HAWKINS, APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: james@jamesha wkinsaplc.com greg@jamesha wkinsaplc.com BAY OF PLENTY: Edgecumbe Flood Class Action Gains Supporters ------------------------------------------------------------ Matt Shand, writing for Stuff, reports that a class action fighting on behalf of Edgecumbe residents displaced by the floods has the support of more than 100 residents. Lawyers Matt Josephson, Esq. -- matt.josephson@mcjlaw.co.nz -- of MCJ Law famous for his victories in the leaky homes saga, and David Heaney QC -- david@wmclaw.co.nz -- of William Martin Chambers Barristers are in Edgecumbe meeting with locals and speaking to experts ahead of the class-action. Edgecumbe was submerged as the river's stopbank burst during heavy rains during ex-tropical Cyclone Debbie in April. The pair are looking at possible reasons for the breach and where culpability can be assigned. "Let me put it this way, I'd rather be on our side," Heaney said. "There are a lot of people who have suffered some horrific losses. Between us we have a wealth of experience in this type of litigation." Rangitaiki Community Board Member Greame Bourk said he has been busy signing people up to take part in the class action suit. "It's been very busy," he said. "We've got close to 100 on paper and more signed up online." Josephson has set up a public meeting St David's Church, Edgecumbe at 4pm on July 21 to explain the legal case in more detail to residents. "I think we have a strong case," he said. "Enough to come down here and invest money into investigating. "The important thing is it will not cost residents anything to get on board so the only investment from people is an hour or two." Josephson said the class-action would only see compensation go to the legal team should a "realistic recovery" be awarded as a result of the case. [GN] BBC: Female Reporters Mull Class Action Over Gender Pay Gap ----------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Rapana, writing for honey.nine.com, reports that at least 10 female BBC reporters are set to sue the national broadcaster if it does not close the gender pay gap, The Telegraph reports. A list of the BBC's highest earners was published on July 19, which revealed the network's female presenters, many of whom are household names from British radio and TV, are being paid significantly less than their male colleagues of the same job descriptions. Female presenters affected have reportedly been discussing the best way forward with at least 10 are said to be considering legal action against their employer. And, according to The Telegraph, that number is expected to grow in the coming days. They are expected to first go to management, using a "strength in numbers" approach, to demand their salaries are brought into line with their male counterparts. Under UK law, it is illegal for two people doing the same job to be paid at different rates because of their gender. Radio 4 Woman's Hour presenter Jane Garvey, who is leading the charge, told The Telegraph a class action was "certainly a possibility". She added "not a single male broadcaster" had been in contact to offer support. The July 19 list revealed the enormous salaries of some of the BBC's biggest names, including presenter Matt Baker who is earning ú500,000 a year. However as it scrambles to deal with the fallout, the BBC has reportedly ordered its highest earners to keep their salary breakdowns hidden from the public, preventing like-for-like comparisons of what male and female presenters earn for presenting the same show which would aid lawyers. Hours after the news broke on July 19, BBC breakfast presenter Louise Minchin looked visibly unimpressed when her co-host Dan Walker, named on the rich list, made an awkward comment about the pay dispute. Walker later took to Twitter to defend his earnings, stating that he and Minchin are paid exactly the same for their work on the top-rating show and the only reason he earns more -- and was subsequently included on the rich list -- is because he has a second job presenting for the show Football Focus. [GN] BEANOCCHIO OF YORK: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Ismael Juarez, Gustavo Velazquez a/k/a "Jonathan" and Ricardo Alberto, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Beanocchio of York, Inc. d/b/a BEANOCCHIO'S, THE GREEN BEAN CAFE, CORP. d/b/a The Green Bean Cafe, Darrell Morris and Ayman Nammoura a/k/a "Iman", Case No. 156357/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours compensation, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate two restaurants under the trade names "Beanocchio's" and "The Green Bean Cafe" in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com cklee@leelitigation.com BROWN UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty --------------------------------------------------------- Diane G. Short, Samira Pardanani, Judith Daviau and Joseph Barboza, Individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries in and on behalf of the Brown University Deferred Vesting Retirement Plan and the Brown University Legacy Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs, v. Brown University in Providence in the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00318, (D.R.I., July 6, 2017), seeks restoration of all Plan losses resulting from each breach of fiduciary duty, equitable or remedial relief, and attorney's fees and costs under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Short, Barboza and Pardanani are participants in the Legacy Retirement Plan while Daviau is a participant in the Deferred Vesting Retirement Plan. Brown University in Providence in the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations is a private, not-for-profit, nonsectarian institution of higher learning in Providence, Rhode Island. Defendant caused the Plans to pay unreasonable and excessive fees for investment and administrative services. Defendant selected and retained investment options for the Plans that historically and consistently underperformed their benchmarks and charged excessive investment management fees, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Sonja L. Deyoe, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SONJA L. DEYOE 395 Smith Street Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 864-5877 Facsimile: (401) 354-7464 Email: sld@the-straight-shooter.com - and - Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq. John J. Nestico, Esq. Michael McKay, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKYWOTKYNS LLP 8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 Tel: (480) 428-0142 Fax: (866) 505-8036 Email: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com mmckay@schneiderwallace.com jnestico@schneiderwallace.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net elechtzin@bm.net apiazza@bm.net - and - Todd Schneider, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Tel: (415) 421-7100 Fax: (415) 421-7105 Email: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com - and - Todd S. Collins, Esq. Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Ellen T. Noteware, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365 Email: tcollins@bm.net scarson@bm.net enoteware@bm.net BULL ROGERS: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Calvillo" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned PATRICIO CALVILLO, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 USC Sec. 216(b), Plaintiffs, v. BULL ROGERS, INC. and HELEN MARIE WALLACE, individually, Defendants, No. 16-cv- 919WJ-GBW (D. N.M.), Judge William P. Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs and Conditional Certification, except for certain language proposed by the Plaintiff in the proposed consent form. The Plaintiff is suing the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages that the Defendants failed to pay in accordance with the FLSA. The Defendants are involved in oilfield casing services throughout New Mexico and Texas over the last three years and employ non-exempt employees to help perform casing services. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of those similarly situated casing employees pursuant to the FLSA. He also brings this action as a Rule 23 class action pursuant to New Mexico Wage Law. The Amended Complaint asserts two counts: Failure to Pay Wages in Accordance with the FLSA (Count I) and Violation of New Mexico Wage Law (Count II). This motion seeks an Order allowing Notice to Potential Plaintiffs and Conditional Certification pursuant to the collective action provision in the FLSA that no employee will be a party plaintiff to any action to recover under the FLSA unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought. The Court finds that the "similarly situated" inquiry under its immediate consideration requires only a colorable basis showing the putative class members are victims of a single decision, policy or plan, and the Plaintiff has satisfied this lenient test. The putative Plaintiffs worked for the same employer, performed largely similar duties and their allegations of FLSA violations are derived from the same alleged practices of either not paying for overtime hours worked or miscalculating those hours. The allegations in the Amended Complaint, together with the Plaintiff's proffered exhibits are therefore sufficient as a basis for the Court to grant conditional certification. Accordingly, the Court conditionally certified this collective action brought under the FLSA. As to the Plaintiff's motion for a supervised Notice to the potential or putative plaintiffs, the Court finds further discussion regarding whether notice by email and text should be allowed to pointless because the law is on the Plaintiff's side. Courts have recognized that notice by email and text is reasonable in today's mobile society and that these methods of communication may offer a more reliable means of reaching an individual even if that individual is away from home or has moved. Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiff's request to send notice to putative plaintiffs by email and text as well as by United States Postal Service. While the Court generally approves of supervised notice as well as the Plaintiff's requested methods of notice, the Court finds it necessary to specifically address the proposed notice forms. The Court therefore stuck some of the language in the proposed consent form. The Plaintiffs' counsel will ensure that the Notice be modified to contain the exact wording approved by the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 memorandum opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/e00L1S from Leagle.com. Patricio Calvillo, Plaintiff, represented by J. Derek Braziel, Lee & Braziel LLP. Patricio Calvillo, Plaintiff, represented by Jack L. Siegel, Siegel Law Group PLLC, Jesse Hamilton Forester, Lee & Braziel LLP & Travis Andrew Gasper, Lee & Braziel, LLP. Bull Rogers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrea K. Robeda -- Andrea.Robeda@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, LLC, Danny W. Jarrett -- JarrettD@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, LLP, Vanessa R. Winton, Jackson Lewis P.C. & William Stukenberg -- William.Stukenberg@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., pro hac vice. Helen Marie Wallace, Defendant, represented by Andrea K. Robeda, Jackson Lewis, LLC, Danny W. Jarrett, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Vanessa R. Winton, Jackson Lewis P.C. & William Stukenberg, Jackson Lewis, P.C., pro hac vice. BURLINGTON COAT: Settlement in "Horosny" Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned JAMES HOROSNY, et al, Plaintiffs, v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, et al, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-05005-SJO-MRWx (C.D. Cal.), Judge S. James Otero of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, Costs of Administration, and Representative Enhancement Payments. Judge Otero finds that the action meets all the requirements for class certification, and ordered that the Settlement Class is finally approved and certified as a class for purposes of settlement of this action. He granted the Parties' Amended Settlement Agreement ("ASA") final approval as it meets the criteria for final settlement approval. Judge Otero finds and determines that the Notice to Class Members was complete and constitutionally sound, because individual notices were mailed and/or emailed to all Class Members whose identities and addresses are reasonably known to the Parties, and Notice was published in accordance with the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, and such notice was the best notice practicable. Pursuant to the terms set forth in the ASA, (i) KCC is awarded $1,137,000 for their services as Settlement Administrator; (ii) Class Representatives James Horosny and Jennifer Price are each awarded the sum of $5,000 as a Class Representative Payment; (iii) and the Class Counsel is awarded $927,500, as attorneys' fees and costs. By means of the Final Order and Judgment, Judge Otero entered Final Judgment in this action. This action is dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees except as provided by the ASA and it is the Final Order and Judgment. The Court reserves its exclusive, general and continuing jurisdiction over the ASA as needed or appropriate in order to administer, supervise, implement, interpret or enforce the Settlement in accordance with its terms. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/naDLEd from Leagle.com. James Horosny, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Caiafa -- dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com -- Douglas Caiafa APLC. James Horosny, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Morosoff - - cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com -- Law Offices of Christopher J Morosoff. Jennifer Price, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Caiafa, Douglas Caiafa APLC & Christopher J. Morosoff, Law Offices of Christopher J Morosoff. Burlington Coat Factory of California, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bethany W. Kristovich -- Bethany.Kristovich@mto.com -- Munger Tolles and Olson LLP. CALIFORNIA: "Fire Tax" Class Action to Continue Despite Repeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Donnelly, writing for Breitbart, reports that a lawsuit against California's controversial "fire prevention fee" (a.k.a. "fire tax") will continue, despite being suspended as part of a deal Republican leaders made to pass cap-and-trade. The tax was levied on almost 800,000 rural property owners in mostly Republican districts. The plaintiffs are continuing with their lawsuit and may seek to have the tax refunded in full. Republican legislators are divided over the impact of the recent deal, when eight Republicans, dubbed the "Swamp 8" by conservative pundits and talk radio hosts, voted in favor of Gov. Jerry Brown's massive extension of California's cap-and-Trade program. Predictably, supporters of the bill -- which the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) predicts could push gasoline prices .63 to .73 higher are trying to spin the deal as a net tax cut and "a huge victory" for Californians. But State Senator Ted Gaines (R-El Dorado Hills), the leading legislative critic of the "Fire Tax," disagrees. "I view it as a bait and switch," Gaines told the Times. "People may think that with the moratorium on the fire tax that it is a good thing, but you've got to weigh that against the cap-and-trade impact on gasoline and energy in California." The group suing the state over the "fire tax" has been encouraged by property owners forced to pay what they allege is an "illegal tax." If the courts agree, that could force the state to refund almost $500 million dollars collected since 2011 -- much of which went to fund existing programs, not the new "fire prevention" efforts promised. Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association estimates that the net effect of the passage of the cap-and Trade expansion, including the suspension of the rural "fire tax" will cost the average California driver more than $400 in higher gas prices. "It's not even close," Mr. Coupal said. "The financial hit that middle-class Californians will take as a result of this legislation is going to be enormous." [GN] CANADA: Apology to N&L Residential School Survivors Long Overdue ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Quinn, writing for CBC News, reports that a federal government apology to Newfoundland and Labrador residential school survivors is long overdue, according to a lawyer who represented almost a thousand of them in a class-action lawsuit settled last year. "The judge and all of the lawyers in this case recognize the general urgency to get this thing done. We learn of people within the class dying almost on a daily basis," said Steven Cooper, who is with the law firm Cooper Regel. One class member who died recently is Inuk Nicky Obed. When he spoke to CBC News in 2015, the nine-year court battle to reach a settlement hadn't yet ended. At the time, Obed said Newfoundland and Labrador residential survivors who had suffered sexual abuse and lost their Indigenous languages and cultures wanted an apology more than compensation for their suffering. "We were forgotten and it hurt us because of what we all went through," he said in 2015. Residential school students still want apology, compensation In 2008, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood up in the House of Commons to offer an apology to Canadian residential school survivors. "We now recognize that far too often these institutions gave rise to abuse or neglect and were inadequately controlled and we apologize for failing to protect you," he said. But that apology excluded Indigenous people who attended residential schools in Newfoundland and Labrador. Obed lived to see a $50-million settlement reached with the federal Liberal government, but he died in June without an apology. Mr. Cooper said that's a tragedy. "An apology after death is no apology at all." Apology more important than money Mr. Cooper said the remaining residential school survivors now want an apology more than financial compensation. "It's long overdue and it's far more essential to the reconciliation and health of survivors than any cheque from the government of Canada," said Mr. Cooper. "They want to be included in the group that was validated. They need to be told that the Canadian government understands and accepts what happened to them and apologizes for what happened to them." Mr. Cooper said the number of survivors contacting him spiked in May after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asked the Pope to apologize to former residential school students. "It's increasingly frustrating for them," said Cooper. "When the prime minister asked the Pope for an apology from the Catholic Church, I got a flurry of phone calls and emails saying, 'Why is he asking for that when he has control over an apology in this country for what this government did to this class of people?'" Nearly a thousand Indigenous people who attended five schools in Newfoundland and Labrador after 1949 have received compensation from the class-action settlement. Their lawyers argued in court that the federal government had the same responsibilities to them as it did to all other Indigenous people in Canada after Newfoundland joined Confederation. Federal response to call for apology When asked for comment by CBC News, the Prime Minister's Office did not respond directly to Cooper's call for an apology. "Colleagues at Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada/Minister Bennett's office will be following up with you on your questions, as they fall under their purview," wrote a PMO spokesperson in an email. In a statement, Carolyn Bennett's office stopped short of saying an apology will be given. "Former students and their families have indicated that an official apology on behalf of the government of Canada is important to their healing and ability to move forward. The government is listening," it says. "Canada recognizes the value of an official apology in achieving reconciliation with former students of Newfoundland and Labrador boarding schools, and is presently considering these views." Retired judge and Inuk James Igloliorte has been appointed to lead the healing and commemoration portion of the Newfoundland and Labrador Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada says Igloliorte is preparing a report for Bennett. "We look forward to hearing from his recommendations on how to best move past this dark chapter in our history," says the department's statement. [GN] CARE CAPITAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Notice is hereby given that Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, case no. 1:17-cv-00859, on behalf of shareholders of Care Capital Properties, Inc. ("Care Capital" or the "Company") (NYSE: CCP) who have been harmed by Care Capital's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed sale of the Company to Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc. ("Sabra"). On May 7, 2017, the Company announced it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") under which each outstanding share of Care Capital common stock will be exchanged for 1.123 common shares of Sabra (the "Proposed Transaction"), for an implied value of $29.96 per share based on Sabra's closing price on May 5, 2017. The shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction is expected to occur on August 15, 2017. If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/CCPnotice. The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 Registration Statement (the "S-4") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on June 12, 2017 to solicit votes in favor of the Proposed Transaction violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the Proposed Transaction, including material information concerning the Company's financial projections and analyses, on which the Board relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to Care Capital shareholders. Take Action Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions and significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, Georgia and Pennsylvania. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice. 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. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel.: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com [GN] CESAR'S RESTAURANT: "Leyva" Seeks Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips ------------------------------------------------------------- Isabel Leyva, Ericka Rodriguez and Jorge Luis Arriaga, Plaintiff, v. Cesar's Restaurant, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04987 (N.D. Ill., July 5, 2017), seeks liquidated damages from unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages and withheld tips, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law the and Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance. Cesar's Restaurant, Inc., operates two restaurants in Chicago, Illinois where Plaintiffs worked. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Alvar Ayala, Esq. Christopher J. Williams, Esq. Workers' Law Office PC 53 W. Jackson blvd., Suite 701 Chicago, IL 60605 Tel: (312) 795-9121 CHICAGO, IL: Agrees to Settle Red Light Tickets Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ John Bryne, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that Chicagoans who have winced at the flash of red light cameras while driving through intersections or spit invective upon finding familiar Revenue Department envelopes in their mailboxes might be in line for a bit of payback from the much-loathed automated camera ticket program. Mayor Rahm Emanuel's administration has agreed to a $38.75 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit alleging Chicago failed to give adequate notice to red light camera and speed camera violators. Under the massive deal, more than 1.2 million people could be in line for payments of half of whatever they paid the city for their tickets. Those who qualify will receive letters in the mail in upcoming months notifying them they were part of the suit and telling them how to collect, according to attorney Jacie Zolna, Esq. -- jzolna@cherry-law.com -- of Myron Cherry whose firm brought the legal challenge. The March 2015 suit claimed the city violated its own rules by failing to send a second notice of a violation before guilt was determined, and by doubling the fine for late payment of tickets sooner than allowed. A couple of months later, the Emanuel administration responded by changing the city ordinance to eliminate the requirement for a second notice. In September 2016, the city passed an ordinance to give those who hadn't gotten second notices from 2010 to 2015 a do-over, sending notices giving people the right to request an administrative hearing to contest their tickets. Emanuel's lawyers argued that brought them into compliance. Then-city Corporation Counsel Stephen Patton said the change "further bolsters our case" by addressing the argument that people who didn't get a second notice were wronged. But Zolna said the city trying to retroactively meet its own standards didn't cut it. "When they passed that law and did that sneaky move, it just emboldened me," he said on July 20 while discussing the settlement. "I decided I wouldn't let them try to do that." In November 2016, a Cook County judge approved class action status for the suit, greatly increasing City Hall's exposure and helping drive a settlement. on July 20, city Corporation Counsel Ed Siskel, Esq., said the Law Department is recommending the settlement because the city could be on the hook for more than $250 million if it lost the case. While the city has successfully defended against other ticket camera lawsuits, that type of possible judgment is too risky, Siskel said. The agreement still needs City Council approval. The Finance Committee is slated to consider it on July 24, and in the likely event it passes, it would go to the full council on July 26. Under the settlement, people who got tickets from 2010 to 2015 will be paid out of a $26.75 million pot. The city also will forgive another $12 million in motorists' unpaid tickets. In addition, the city will agree not to count the tickets toward violations that could get drivers' cars booted or their licenses suspended. Zolna said his firm, Myron M. Cherry & Associates, will get a little less than one-third of the settlement. Vishal Aggarwal of Naperville was part of the suit. Under the settlement, he's in line for $50 from the city for a $100 red light ticket he got in September 2014 on Foster Avenue in the Uptown neighborhood. Aggarwal said the money will be nice, but he's mainly happy City Hall is being held accountable for breaking the rules. "Morally, the point is, if something's wrong, it's wrong," he said. The settlement is just the latest problem for the city's troubled red light camera system. Zolna's suit was among half a dozen cases that followed a Chicago Tribune investigation of corruption and mismanagement within the city's $600 million red light program. The series exposed a $2 million City Hall bribery scheme that brought the traffic cameras to Chicago as well as tens of thousands of tickets that were unfairly issued to drivers. The investigation found malfunctioning cameras, inconsistent enforcement and millions of dollars in tickets issued purposely by City Hall even after transportation officials knew that yellow light times were dropping below the federal minimum guidelines. Throughout the scandal, the Emanuel administration has been reluctant to issue refunds, in some cases forcing drivers to file paperwork and apply for a rehearing process some critics have called onerous. Last year, former City Hall operative John Bills was sentenced to 10 years in prison for taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to steer tens of millions of dollars in red light camera contracts to an Arizona company, Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. According to testimony at his federal trial, Bills took a cash bribe of up to $2,000 for each of the 384 red light cameras that were installed while he oversaw the program. A Tribune-sponsored study of the red-light program in 2014 found that nearly 40 percent of the intersections equipped with the cameras are likely making the streets more dangerous. The study found that the cameras caused a 22 percent increase in rear-end crashes, yet provided no safety benefit at intersections that never had a problem with right-angle crashes in the first place. The city will use $10 million it will receive by year's end from a settlement with Redflex over the bribery scandal to pay part of the $26.75 million, according to city Budget Department spokeswoman Molly Poppe. The city will tap "available operating dollars first and using bond proceeds where necessary" to pay the balance, Poppe said in an email. Ald. Anthony Beale, 9th, who has railed against the red light and speed cameras, said the huge settlement underscores that the ticket programs are not about safety, but about "trying to balance the books on the backs of the people who can least afford to pay." "What I can tell you is, 'I told you so,'" said Beale, City Council Transportation Committee chairman, when told of the settlement on July 20. "If you recall, years ago I said the whole red light camera issue was more about revenue than it was about public safety." [GN] CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sept 18 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. ("Chipotle" or the "Company") (NYSE:CMG) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Colorado, and docketed under 17-cv- 01760, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Chipotle securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Chipotle securities between February 5, 2016, and July 19, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until September 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 the number of shares purchased. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. owns and operates quick-serve Mexican restaurants. The Company operates restaurants throughout the United States. In 2015, numerous customers fell ill after eating at Chipotle restaurants, exposing the fact that Chipotle's quality controls were not in compliance with applicable consumer and workplace safety regulations and were inadequate to safeguard consumer and employee health. Facing a sharp drop-off in sales, Chipotle responded with widely publicized measures that the Company touted as improvements to its food safety protocols. On February 8, 2016, the Company closed all of its restaurants for several hours for an all-staff meeting regarding food safety. In addition, Chipotle hired a new head of food safety who implemented a number of changes to policies at the Company's restaurants--for example, requiring all employees to wash their hands every half hour, mandating that two employees verified that certain ingredients had been immersed in hot water for at least five seconds to kill germs, and using Pascalization to pre-treat food ingredients. By touting these measures, along with free food promotions and increased advertising, Chipotle aimed to restore customer confidence in the safety of its food. 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) Chipotle's purported improvements in its restaurants' food safety policies were inadequate; (ii) accordingly, Chipotle's quality controls were still not in compliance with applicable consumer and workplace safety regulations; (iii) in turn, Chipotle's quality controls remained inadequate to safeguard consumer and employee health; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Chipotle's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 18, 2017, media outlets reported that Chipotle had closed a restaurant in Sterling, Virginia due to a suspected norovirus outbreak. According to Business Insider, citing information from iwaspoisoned.com, a website on which consumers document suspected incidents of foodborne illness, at least 13 customers fell ill after eating at the Chipotle restaurant in question between July 14 and July 15. The Business Insider article further stated that customers who fell sick after eating at the restaurant reported "vomiting violently," fevers, "violent stomach cramps," and dizziness for several days. On this news, Chipotle's share price fell $17.02, or 4.34%, to close at $374.98 on July 18, 2017. On July 20, 2017, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "Over 100 Report Being Sickened at Virginia Chipotle," disclosing that the number of reports of illness associated with the restaurant-chain continues to rise. On that same day, Reuters published an article entitled "Chipotle Virginia customer tested positive for norovirus -- official," reporting that a county health department official has confirmed norovirus in a customer who ate at the Virginia Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. restaurant. Later in the day, CNBC published an article entitled "Rodents reportedly fall from ceiling of Dallas Chipotle," reporting that rodents were spotted at a Dallas-area Chipotle on July 19, 2017. According to the article, diners captured the incident inside the restaurant on video, which shows "rodents crawling around the floor and one climbing up the wall," and with customers claiming the rodents were falling from the ceiling. On these disclosures, Chipotle's share price fell $16.78, or 4.5%, to close at $356.05 on July 20, 2017. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms 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. Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S: Court Dismisses "Durham" With Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Timothy S. Black of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice the case captioned JACOB DURHAM, Plaintiff, v. CINCINNATI CHILDREN's HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-438 (S.D. Ohio). This case is one of hundreds of cases in both Ohio state courts and federal courts stemming from the alleged conduct of an orthopedic surgeon named Abubakar Atiq Durrani who formerly lived and worked in the Cincinnati area. In 2013, allegations surfaced that Dr. Durrani had for years subjected his patients to unnecessary surgeries without informed consent as part of a financial scheme. He was criminally indicted in late 2013, but fled to his native Pakistan before trial. There is no indication he will return. In his absence, hundreds of allegedly wronged patients have filed civil suits against numerous related parties, from Dr. Durrani himself to the facilities where surgeries allegedly took place to the manufacturers of the medial products that were allegedly inserted into patients' without their informed consent. The majority of the Plaintiffs in these various lawsuits are represented by a single law firm, the Deters Law Office. In the case currently before this Court, Plaintiff Durham has filed a proposed class action suit against the Defendant on behalf of himself and all patients who, as of the filing of this complaint, have undergone surgery at CCHMC and had Infuse/BMP-2 placed in them without their knowledge and consent during surgery by Dr. Durrani and other surgeons. The complaint advances claims of fraud and violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Protection Act. The Defendant filed a timely motion to dismiss, which was placed on hold while the Court adjudicated a motion to remand filed by the Plaintiffs. The Court has rejected the motion to remand. The Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss acknowledges that he is an inappropriate class representative because he is not a member of the proposed class due to his previous association with the Deters Law Office as the Plaintiff in an Ohio state court action raising similar claims to the present action. He has accordingly indicated that he no longer wishes to proceed as the class representative in this action. In an attempt to preserve this action, three potential Intervenor Plaintiffs, Christina Rutter, Joseph Rutter, and Carson Rutter, have filed a motion to intervene as class representatives in this action. That motion has been opposed by the Defendant. Ultimately, Judge Black held that there appears to be little need for this class action, which seems to him to merely be an attempt by the Deters Law Office to "corner the market" on any potential Plaintiffs they may have missed who are not among the hundreds of Plaintiffs currently pursuing their claims in Ohio state court. This is an inappropriate use of the class action mechanism, and if allowed would create duplicitous litigation that would threaten to waste judicial resources and prolong the ultimate resolution of the many serious claims arising from the alleged acts of Dr. Durrani. As it stands, allowing this complaint to proceed would serve no one but the Plaintiff's counsel. Accordingly, Judge Black granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss, denied (on the merits and as moot) the Intervenor Plaintiffs' motion to intervene, and dismissed with prejudice the case. He directed the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this civil action will be closed. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/d4pZ2Z from Leagle.com. Jacob Durham, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew J. Hammer, The Deters Law Firm P.S.C.. Jacob Durham, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Albert Winter, Jr.. Jacob Durham, Plaintiff, represented by James P. Triona, The Deters Firm. Christina Rutter, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Robert Albert Winter, Jr.. Joseph Rutter, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Robert Albert Winter, Jr.. Carson Rutter, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Robert Albert Winter, Jr.. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Defendant, represented by Jon David Brittingham -- david.brittingham@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl, Allison Knerr -- Allison.Knerr@Dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore and Shohl & Michael Jeffrey Gray -- michael.gray@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP. CLASSIC PARKING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Lembeck" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Lembeck, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as representative of other aggrieved employees v. Classic Parking, Inc. and Does 1 through 250, inclusive, Case No. BC668709 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Classic Parking, Inc. offers parking, transportation, and security services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. Jean P. Buchanan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP 555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432-8933 Facsimile: (562) 435-1656 E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com jean@carlinbuchsbaum.com CLOROX COMPANY: Faces Class Action for False Advertising -------------------------------------------------------- Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Northern California Record, reports that a New York consumer and an Orange County man allege that a line of cleaning supplies falsely advertises that they are natural. Joseph Gregorio and Patrick Quiroz filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated on July 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against The Clorox Co. alleging violation of the California Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Law, California's False Advertising Law and other counts. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they purchased the defendant's Green Works Naturally Derived Dishwashing Liquid earlier this year because they had an interest in purchasing natural cleaning products. The plaintiffs holds The Clorox Co. responsible because the defendant allegedly claims that its product is natural or naturally derived despite containing synthetic and non-natural ingredients, such as boric acid and calcium chloride. The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, interest, restitution, order the defendant in a corrective advertising, injunctive relief all legal fees, and any other relief as the court deems just. They are represented by L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. in Walnut Creek and by Scott Bursor, Esq. -- sbursor@bursor.com -- of the same firm in New York. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case number 3:17-cv-03824-JCS [GN] CLOROX COMPANY: "Gregorio" Alleges Product Mislabeling ------------------------------------------------------ Joseph Gregorio and Patrick Quiroz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Clorox Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-03824 (N.D. Cal., July 5, 2017), seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded, restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief, a corrective advertising campaign, injunctive relief as pleaded, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, and costs of suit resulting from breach of express and implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and fraud, and violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law under the Business and Professions Code, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, New York's General Business Law (False Advertising). The Clorox Company produces, markets and distributes the Green Works (R) home cleaning products. Quiroz purchased Green Works Naturally Derived Dishwashing Liquid and Green Works Naturally Derived Laundry Detergent from a Target store located in Orange County, California. Clorox claims that their products are "natural" and "naturally derived" despite containing synthetic and non-natural ingredients, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: scott@bursor.com COLLECTO INC: Jones Files Suit Over FDCPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------- Gregory Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Collecto, Inc., d/b/a EOS CCA, a Massachusetts corporation, and US Asset Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-02346-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind., July 11, 2017), alleges that the Defendants' debt collection letter form violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS CCA, is a Massachusetts corporation, which acts as a debt collector because it regularly uses the mails or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, delinquent consumer debts. EOS operates a nationwide debt collection business and attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in the state of Indiana. US Asset Management, Inc., is a Delaware corporation that acts as a debt collector. US Asset is a bad debt buyer that buys large portfolios of defaulted consumer debts for pennies on the dollar, which it then collects upon through other collection agencies, such as EOS. US Asset's principal, if not sole, business purpose is the collection of delinquent consumer debts originated by others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. Angie K. Robertson, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Telephone: (708) 974-2900 Facsimile: (708) 974-2907 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com angiekrobertson@aol.com - and - John T. Steinkamp, Esq. 5214 S. East Street, Suite D1 Indianapolis, IN 46227 Telephone: (317) 780-8300 Facsimile: (317) 217-1320 E-mail: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com COVISINT CORP: "Lai" Claims Shortchanged on Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------- Valiant K. Lai, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Covisint Corporation, John F. Smith, Bernard M. Goldsmith, William O. Grabe, Dave Hansen, Sam Inman III, Andreas Mai, Jonathan Yaron, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 12183 (E.D. Mich., July 5, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of Covisint Corporation by Open Text Corporation and Cypress Merger Sub, Inc. The Plaintiff further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and granting such other and further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Covisint Corporation will be acquired by Open Text Corporation and Cypress Merger Sub, Inc. where shareholders of Covisint will receive $2.45 in cash for each share of Covisint common stock. Defendants have allegedly locked up the deal and have precluded other bidders from making successful competing offers for the company. Said merger consideration is inadequate considering that the intrinsic value of the Company is materially in excess of the amount offered thus denying Plaintiff their right to share proportionately and equitably in the true value of the Company's valuable and profitable business and future growth in profits and earnings. Covisint provides an open, developer-friendly, enterprise-class cloud platform to facilitate the rapid development and deployment of Internet of Things, Identity Management and B2B collaboration solutions. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Palestina, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 206 Covington Street Madisonville, LA 70447 Tel.: (504) 455-1400 Fax: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com - and - Anthony L. DeLuca, Esq. ANTHONY L. DELUCA, PLC 14950 East Jefferson Ave., Suite 170 Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230 Tel: (313) 821-5905 Fax: (313) 821-5906 Email: Anthony@aldplc.com CREDIT CONTROL: "Evans" Hits Unjust Threat in Collection Letter --------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Evans and Cristina Wiseman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Credit Control, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01350 (S.D. Cal., July 5, 2017), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In April 2016, Evans and Wiseman incurred financial obligations to Capital One, N.A. for personal credit cards. Defendant, in their collection letter, threatened to share Plaintiffs' personal information without the Plaintiffs' consent in their attempt to collect said debt. Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. Yana A. Hart, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26 Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com yana@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY 409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Facsimile: (866) 431-3292 Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com CSW INC: Bid to Invalidate Private Deals in "Morgan" Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned DWAYNE MORGAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CSW INC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-C-1283 (E.D. Eis.), Judge William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (i) granted CSW's and Withdrawal Plaintiffs' motion to invalidate the private settlements; and (ii) set on the court's calendar for hearing the settlement reached by the Plaintiffs' counsel with CSW. The Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated against the Defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Wisconsin Wage and Hour Law. The FLSA claim is brought as an "opt-in" collective action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA. The Wisconsin wage and hour claim is brought as an "opt-out" Rule 23 Class Action. The amended complaint alleges that the Plaintiff Employees were employed directly by CSW, a Mississippi corporation that recruits and hires construction workers to work on construction projects throughout the country. During the relevant time period, the Plaintiff Employees worked under a contract between CSW and Northern Concrete at Northern Concrete's Wisconsin job sites. They allege that they were joint employees of both CSW and Northern Concrete, and that both the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for violations of federal and state laws governing minimum wages. CSW is currently unrepresented and has failed to answer the amended complaint, though the Plaintiffs have not moved for default. Northern Concrete denies liability as a joint employer and claims that CSW contractually agreed to assume full responsibility for all human resources functions. Currently before the court is a motion to invalidate the alleged settlements made without court approval between CSW and five of the Named Plaintiffs -- Paul Robinson, Clint Robinson, Shaun Saunders, Michael Owens, and Cornelius Buford ("Withdrawal Plaintiffs") -- and to issue a court-authorized notice that the Withdrawal Plaintiffs remain a party in the lawsuit. Also before the court is the Plaintiffs' motion to approve a settlement reached between the Plaintiffs' counsel and CSW and for leave to withdraw all claims against CSW pursuant to that settlement. Northern Concrete opposes both motions. The Court explains that the Plaintiffs have submitted sufficient evidence for the Court to conclude it is likely that the Withdrawal Plaintiffs' actions were the result of private settlement agreements with CSW. Invalidating the Withdrawal Plaintiffs' settlements also does not necessarily force the unwilling Plaintiffs to continue litigating this matter. After the Withdrawal Plaintiffs receive notice that their withdrawals are invalid and that they remain parties to this lawsuit, they remain free to withdraw from the case subject to either proof that their decision to withdraw was not the result of a settlement agreement with CSW or, if it was, approval of the settlement by the Court. Accordingly, the motion to invalidate any settlements between CSW and the Withdrawal Plaintiffs is granted. The Plaintiffs attached to their motion a proposed notice which would notify the Withdrawal Plaintiffs that any settlements of their FLSA claims have been invalidated and that they remain Plaintiffs in this case. That notice is approved with one addition. It should include a statement advising the individual Withdrawal Plaintiffs that they can request court approval of the settlements they reached with CSW by filing with the court a written motion requesting court approval and explaining why they believe the settlement is fair and reasonable. The motion should also include the Withdrawal Plaintiff's address and a telephone number where he can be reached so that the Court can conduct a telephone hearing on the request in the event further information is required. With that addition, the proposed notice submitted by counsel should be sent to the Plaintiffs who sought to withdraw from the action. With respect to the Plaintiffs' request for court approval of the proposed settlement agreement between their counsel and CSW, the Court says it does not have enough information to approve or reject the proposed settlement in this unusual case. Accordingly, it directed the Clerk to set a hearing on the Court's calendar at which counsel will appear and address the Plaintiffs' motion to withdraw all claims against Defendant CSW. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/6PQVZo from Leagle.com. Dwayne Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens, The Previant Law Firm SC. Dwayne Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by Sara J. Geenen, The Previant Law Firm SC & Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC. Clint Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens, The Previant Law Firm SC, Sara J. Geenen, The Previant Law Firm SC & Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC. Paul Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens, The Previant Law Firm SC, Sara J. Geenen, The Previant Law Firm SC & Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC. Michael Owens, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens, The Previant Law Firm SC, Sara J. Geenen, The Previant Law Firm SC & Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC. Marques Stewart, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens, The Previant Law Firm SC, Sara J. Geenen, The Previant Law Firm SC & Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC. Cornelius Buford, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens, The Previant Law Firm SC, Sara J. Geenen, The Previant Law Firm SC & Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC. Shaun Saunders, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens, The Previant Law Firm SC, Sara J. Geenen, The Previant Law Firm SC & Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC. Daunte Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens, The Previant Law Firm SC, Sara J. Geenen, The Previant Law Firm SC & Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC. Kendall Holmes, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Ahrens, The Previant Law Firm SC, Sara J. Geenen, The Previant Law Firm SC & Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC. Northern Concrete Construction Inc, Defendant, represented by Devin S. Hayes -- dhayes@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen & Roper SC, Geoffrey S. Trotier -- gtrotier@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen & Roper SC & Roy E. Wagner -- rwagner@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen & Roper SC. DEMO MASTERS: Gregorio Sues Over Inaccurate Wage Statements ----------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Gregorio and Patrick Quiroz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Demo Masters, Defendant, Case No. RG17866648 (Cal. Super., July 6, 2017), seeks compensation resulting from Defendant's failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements under California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Demo Masters offers total turnkey demolition services for manufacturing plants, airports, governmental facilities and commercial facilities. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Tel: (818) 990-8300 Fax: (818) 990-2903 Email: eric@kingsleykingsley.com EXTENDED STAY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Amy Williams, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Extended Stay America, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01877-C (N.D. Tex., July 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Extended Stay America, Inc. operates an economy, extended-stay hotel chain consisting of 629 properties in the United States and Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles W. Branham III, Esq. DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP 302 N. Market St., Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 722-5990 Facsimile: (214) 722-5991 E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com FACEBOOK INC: Fights Data Security Class Action in EU Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Euronews reports the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) heard arguments on July 19 over whether to allow a class action suit against Facebook, brought by Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems -- and about 25,000 other users across the globe. Schrems is claiming 500 euros (GBP442) in damages for each signatory to his lawsuit, one of a series of European challenges to U.S. technology firms and their handling of personal data. Schrems's lawsuit concerns alleged violations of privacy by Facebook through its use of personal data and tracking of users on external pages, among other things. Schrems argues it is vital that the case be treated as a class-action suit. He believes 25,000 individual lawsuits on user privacy would be "impossible" due to the financial burden on users and the inefficiency for judges. "If privacy claims cannot be grouped, they (Facebook) can get away with violating the law," Schrems said in a statement. While common in the United States, class action suits are generally not recognised in Europe. Facebook calls the suit a way to get around that, brought by an activist so well-known he has merited an exhibit dedicated to his campaign against Facebook in Berlin's Spy Museum. Schrems launched the lawsuit in August 2014 at his home court in Vienna against Facebook Ireland Ltd, the subsidiary offering the social network to more than 80 percent of active users worldwide. Around 25,000 other Facebook users transferred their financial claims to him, forming an artificial class action suit, although legally the case remains between two parties. Austria's Supreme Court referred two questions to the European court. Firstly, it asked whether people lose the status of "consumer" when they publish books, deliver lectures, collect donations and operate websites. Secondly, in the event that Schrems could be considered a consumer, it asked whether it could hear the class action case when some of the consumers involved may not be based in Austria or even in the EU. Facebook argues that Schrems cannot be considered a "consumer". He has spoken and written extensively on privacy law, and, according to Facebook, used the social media platform to further those professional activities -- something Schrems denies. A Facebook spokesperson said: "Mr. Schrems's claims have twice been rejected on the grounds that they cannot proceed as 'class action' on behalf of other consumers in Austrian courts. We were pleased to be able to present to the CJEU and look forward to resolving these claims." European consumer group BEUC backed Schrems's bid to have the case handled as a class action. "Consumers are often powerless when tech giants breach data protection rules," said BEUC's Christoph Schmon. "It makes sense to bundle multiple claims and avoid parallel procedures in different countries." A court adviser, Advocate General Michal Bobek, is expected to issue his opinion on November 7, with the final judgement to come by the end of the year. [GN] FCA US: Loses Bid to Deny Class Certification in "Victorino" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned CARLOS VICTORINO and ADAM TAVITIAN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 16cv1617-GPC(JLB)(S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied the Defendants' motion to deny class certification. The Plaintiffs bring this purported first amended class action complaint based on defects in the 2013-2016 Dodge Dart vehicles equipped with a Fiat C635 manual transmission that cause the vehicles' clutches to fail and stick to the floor. As a result, the vehicles equipped with the defective manual transmission exhibit stalling, failure to accelerate, and premature failure of the Clutch System's components, including the clutch master cylinder and reservoir hose, clutch slave cylinder and release bearing, clutch disc, pressure plate, and flywheel. The Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, sells, and leases passenger vehicles, including the Plaintiffs' vehicles. On Feb. 13, 2017, the Defense Counsel emailed the Plaintiffs' attorneys, Jordan Lurie and Tarek Zohdy, with the subject line "Settlement" where the Defendant offered to pay the two plaintiffs in the DeCoteau case and the Plaintiffs in the Victorino case $10,000 each for a total of $40,000 total. The offer was contingent on acceptance by all four plaintiffs in both cases. The settlement offer was made in response to a $10,000 demand for an individual settlement made by the plaintiffs' counsel in the DeCoteau. The Defendant agreed to accept the demand made in DeCoteau contingent upon acceptance of the settlement by all four plaintiffs in DeCoteau and this case. When the Plaintiffs' counsel never responded to the offer, it was withdrawn over a month later on March 10, 2017 due the start of discovery. When the Plaintiffs were deposed in April 2017, they indicated they were not aware of a settlement offer made by the Defendant to resolve their claims. Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to deny class certification filed on May 19, 2017. The Plaintiffs filed an opposition on June 16, 2017. On June 30, 2017, Defendant filed a reply. The Defendant argues that the adequacy requirement for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) cannot be satisfied because the Plaintiffs' counsel violated their ethical obligation under California Rules of Professional Conduct 3-510 by failing to communicate to the Plaintiffs the settlement offer made by the Defendant. It contends that the Plaintiffs' counsel's failure to communicate the settlement offer demonstrates they will act in the same unethical manner throughout the litigation. Judge Curiel held that the Plaintiffs' counsel's failure to communicate the Defendant's settlement offer was contrary to California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-510 which raises a question as to counsels' integrity and trustworthiness to represent the interests of the class. However, there were reasons, albeit incorrect, why the Plaintiffs' counsel did not believe they needed to communicate the settlement offer. Based on the record to date, Judge Curiel cannot conclude that the Plaintiffs' counsel's conduct creates a serious doubt on their integrity and trustworthiness as representatives for the class. As noted by the new evidence of a potential new conflict of interest and solicitation issue raised in the reply, discovery on class certification is still ongoing. Therefore, at this early stage, Judge Curiel denied the Defendant's motion to deny class certification subject to the adequacy of counsel being raised again in conjunction with the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification where the Court will consider all Rule 23 factors. The hearing date of July 28, 2017 will be vacated. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/DvPNtz from Leagle.com. Carlos Victorino, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett, Capstone Law APC. Carlos Victorino, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan L. Lurie, Capstone Law APC, Karen Lynn Wallace, Capstone Law APC, Robert Kenneth Friedl, Capstone Law APC & Tarek H. Zohdy, Capstone Law APC. Adam Tavitian, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett, Capstone Law APC, Jordan L. Lurie, Capstone Law APC, Karen Lynn Wallace, Capstone Law APC, Robert Kenneth Friedl, Capstone Law APC & Tarek H. Zohdy, Capstone Law APC. FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathleen Ann Wisniewski, Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice, Scott H. Morgan, Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen Anthony D'Aunoy, Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice, William M. Low, Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP & Edwin Mendelson Boniske, Higgs Fletcher & Mack, LLP. FLOYD COUNTY, IN: Proposed Class Action Deal Awaits Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ Elizabeth Depompei, writing for News and Tribute, reports that a proposed $1.23 million settlement between the Floyd County jail and former inmates who say jail staff violated their constitutional rights could be approved or denied by a judge on July 24. The class action lawsuit represents more than 200 people confined to padded cells and allegedly "deprived of clothing, bedding and hygiene products" from June 12, 2012, to the present. Louisville- based attorney Laura Landenwich of Clay, Daniel Walton & Adams first filed the complaint on behalf of former inmate Tabitha Gentry in June 2014. Five other former inmates eventually joined the lawsuit, which was later certified as a class action. According to court documents, Gentry was arrested on multiple misdemeanor charges on March 20, 2014. Gentry reported she was forcibly stripped of her clothes, Tased and pepper-sprayed while being held in a padded cell for nearly five hours. At the time, staff under then-Sheriff Darrell Mills operated on a policy that detailed how to handle "combative or potentially suicidal subjects" entering the jail. That policy, a copy of which is included in court records, states that it was the supervisor's discretion as to who was deemed "stable or unstable," and whether that person posed a harm to themselves or someone else. The policy directed staff to remove such a person's clothing and provide a smock. Clothing was to be removed by an officer of the same gender as the inmate, "unless the threat of physical resistance is too great a risk . . . . " Per a proposed settlement, which has been preliminarily approved by a U.S. District Court judge, that policy would not be allowed to be reinstated. Floyd County Sheriff Frank Loop said he stopped operating under the policy when he took office in January 2015. Loop is not directly named in the lawsuit, and by agreeing to a settlement, the jail does not admit any wrongdoing. "I can only talk about my current policy, [which] is that if we have a combative person -- which we have on a regular basis -- and we determine that they need to be placed in a padded cell, they are placed in there in a restraint chair," Loop said in a phone interview on July 18. "And there's a set training for the restraint chair and when we place those people in there, it doesn't matter what they're dressed in." The jail has two padded cells and two restraint chairs with six buckles each. Loop said the only scenario where someone is stripped of their clothing is if they meet the guidelines for a strip search. "But we never just take their clothes away and leave them unclothed," he said. Some plaintiffs were Tased and/or pepper sprayed at the jail. In one case, a plaintiff claimed he was Tased seven times and that an officer "choked him until he lost consciousness." The previous policy noted that staff is trained to maintain control of inmates "by both verbal and physical means if necessary." It also notes that the highest number of use of force or physical altercations occurred during the book-in process. As part of the settlement, more than 200 former inmates potentially affected by the previous policy were identified. Nearly 60 of those people were Tased or pepper sprayed while in the jail. Per the settlement, those people could receive an initial payment of $3,000. The rest of the money would be divided between all members of the class action, the amount per person not to exceed $25,000. But before those payouts, 37 percent of the $1.23 million settlement would go toward attorneys' fees, and roughly $45,000 would be applied to court costs. Another $15,000 would go to each of the six original plaintiffs in the case. In addition to ceasing the former combative subjects policy, the settlement would require more training for corrections officers. And that's something Loop supports. " . . . . I actually agreed with them that we should train everybody before they actually do the job instead of, for forever it was 'Oh hire somebody, throw them in the job and we'll train them when we can,' " Loop said. "And that's part of what the problems were." A notice of the class action suit, along with settlement documents, have been posted at floydcountyjailclassaction.com. Former inmates who qualify can submit claims until July 21. A final hearing on the settlement is schedule for July 24 at 1 p.m. Landenwich, the attorney for the former inmates, said that as long as the judge deems the settlement fair, it should be approved and payments can start being disbursed. Loop said that in addition to hiring more corrections officers and beginning jail renovations, he recently hired a law firm to do a complete review of the jail's policies and procedures. He expects those to be finalized in the next 30 days. ". . . . Which will bring us up to date on what we're supposed to do so we can avoid litigation in the future," he said. [GN] FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Driveshaft Flexible Coupling ------------------------------------------------------------ David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford Transit van driveshaft flexible coupling lawsuit alleges 2015-2017 Ford Transit vans have driveshaft flexible couplings, also known as flex discs, that crack and fail and cause serious dangers and a huge expense to repair. The driveshaft flexible coupling is a type of joint that connects the transmission to the driveshaft. The failure of the driveshaft flexible coupling can cause the driveshaft to rip away from the transmission, causing severe damage to surrounding components. Those components include brake and fuel lines, the transmission, rear end differential, torque converter and evaporation container. The vans are popular with business owners who depend on the vehicles for their livelihoods, and it is business owners who filed the class-action lawsuit. The problems allegedly experienced by the plaintiff (All Care Transport) reads like the script of a soap opera. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff bought a new 2015 Ford Transit van in May 2015 and in November 2016, the driver heard a loud popping noise and felt a vibration while driving on the freeway. The driver allegedly lost steering and braking because the flex disc failed, causing the driveshaft to separate from the engine. The failure of the flex disc was so violent that it also sheared the brake lines and coolant lines, damaged the fuel line and evaporation canister and broke the transmission mount bracket and flange, all of which had to be replaced and repaired. The van was taken to a dealer where it was out of service for almost a month while being repaired, causing a repair bill of $3,204.03. All Care Transport also bought a new 2016 Ford Transit van in September 2015, but in November the van was taken back to the dealer because the vehicle was vibrating. Technicians inspected the flex disc and found the driveline coupler was coming apart, causing the van to spend two weeks in the shop. On June 5, 2017, All Care Transport brought the same van to a dealership because the catalytic converter allegedly failed, so the plaintiff asked technicians to check on the flex disc. The service tech found the flex disc (which had been installed new only six months and 47,335 miles earlier) was cracked, so they replaced it with a new driveshaft flexible coupling at a cost of $267.11 to All Care Transport. Then there is a third Transit van the plaintiff purchased new in December 2015. After the first van experienced catastrophic flex disc failure and the second van had a cracked flex disc, All Care Transport brought their other vans to a dealer to have the flex discs checked. On December 8, 2016, the service center found the driveshaft flexible coupling in the third van was cracked and coming apart, so the flex disc was replaced. On May 13, 2017, as the third Transit van was being accelerated on a freeway entrance ramp, the driver felt a hard vibration and heard a loud popping noise and pulled over to the side of the on- ramp. The van was towed at a cost of $160 and technicians found the flex disc (which had just been installed new five months earlier) had catastrophically failed, causing the driveshaft to drop off the engine and tear into pieces, shearing the transmission off its mount, shredding the fuel lines, damaging the evaporator box and lines and the heater hose. The plaintiff says when the driveshaft separated from the engine, it nearly tore through its catch-loop, something that would have caused the Transit to pole-vault down the highway. It allegedly took more than five weeks for the dealer to repair the van, at a cost of $5,211. But then there is a fourth Transit van that was purchased new in May 2016. The plaintiff had the van at a shop in April 2017 and asked workers to check the flex disc. They allegedly found the disc was cracked and had to replace it at a cost of $356.11 to All Care Transport. The lawsuit alleges when Ford Transit owners complain to the automaker about the driveshaft problems, Ford allegedly denies knowledge of the problems and makes owners pay for repairs. However, the plaintiff says Ford has known about the driveshaft flexible coupling problem since 2014 and finally ordered a recall in June 2017. The recall notice says "continuing to operate a vehicle with a cracked flexible coupling may cause separation of the driveshaft, resulting in a loss of motive power while driving or unintended vehicle movement in park without the parking brake applied." In addition, Ford told Transit owners that "separation of the driveshaft from the transmission can result in secondary damage to surrounding components, including brake and fuel lines." Ford also acknowledged that "driveshaft separation may increase the risk of injury or crash." In its recall notice, Ford requires Transit owners to replace the driveshaft flexible coupling "every 30,000 miles" until a permanent remedy (which Ford does not have) becomes available. The plaintiff says Ford not only doesn't have a fix for the problem, but nothing in the documents indicates that Ford will reimburse owners who have paid to have the flex discs repaired. Currently the proposed class-action lawsuit includes 2015-2017 Ford Transit owners and lessees in California only, but lawsuits such as this often begin in localized areas and then expand to other parts of the country. The Ford Transit van driveshaft flexible coupling lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division - All Care Transport, LLC, et. al., v. Ford Motor Company. The plaintiff is represented by Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Jones Ward, and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. [GN] GALLERY AUTOMOTIVE: "Sullivan" Remanded to Mass. State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the case captioned DONALD SULLIVAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GALLERY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC and YUSUKE MIKI, Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-12552-GAO (D. Mass.). According to the Plaintiff's allegations, Defendant Gallery Automotive operates multiple car dealerships in Massachusetts. Defendant Miki is a manager at the company. In December 2014, the Plaintiff was hired as a car salesperson compensated by draw pay and commissions. While a salesperson, he worked more than 40 hours in multiple workweeks, including more than 45 hours in some workweeks. At no time was he compensated at a rate of one and one half times his regular rate of pay for the hours he worked over forty per week. In April 2016, the Plaintiff was promoted to the position of financial services manager responsible for selling automobile financial products to customers. He continued to be compensated by draw pay and commissions. While a manager, he worked more than 40 hours in multiple workweeks, including more than 60 hours in some workweeks. At no time was he compensated at a rate of one and one half times his regular rate of pay for the hours worked in excess of forty per week. The pay slips issued by the Defendants failed to list his hourly rate or actual number of hours he worked per week. Additionally, the Defendants failed to pay him $8,710.27 in commission earned from the sale of automobile financial products in August and September 2016, as well as for four paid holidays. In October 2016, the Plaintiff brought this suit in Plymouth County Superior Court on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleging class claims of non-payment of wages in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151, Sections 1A, 1B (Count I), non-payment of wages in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Sections 148, 150 (Count II), and failure to maintain proper payroll records in violation of various state laws and regulations (Count III), as well as separate claims by Sullivan as an individual for non-payment of wages in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Sections 148, 150 (Count IV), breach of contract (Count V), and unjust enrichment/quantum meruit (Count VI). The complaint does not include a claim for a specific amount of damages. The Defendants removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332, 1441, and 1446. The Plaintiff now moves to remand, contending that the case does not satisfy the amount- incontroversy requirement for this Court to exercise diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under Section 1332(a). First, in order to assign a dollar figure to the Plaintiff's unspecified overtime claims, the Defendants assume that the Plaintiff worked an average of 12.53 hours of overtime per week for his 88 weeks of employment, and multiply that figure by a weighted average overtime rate of $14.04 to contend that the damages would eclipse $75,000 after mandatory trebling under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section. However, according to Judge O'Toole, the assumption that the Plaintiff worked an average of 12.53 extra hours of overtime per week is not only hypothetical, but it is also belied by the Defendants' own payroll records which reveal a lower average. Second, the Defendants' contention that the Plaintiff's two specific allegations regarding unpaid commissions are mere examples of other potential -- but unspecified -- commissions rest on a contorted reading of the complaint. Without more, Judge O'Toole finds the Defendants' contention regarding an amount of unpaid commissions is merely speculative. Third, although a potential award of attorneys' fees may properly be considered in determining the amount in controversy when, as here, they are provided for by statute, the Defendants have not shown that it is reasonably probable in this case that attorneys' fees would boost the damages amount beyond the $75,000 threshold. Accordingly, in light of the speculative nature of the Defendants' arguments, Judge O'Toole concluded that the Defendants have failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 for the Plaintiff's individual claims. Therefore, he granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand as to an order of remand. Although the Plaintiff's motion is meritorious, Judge O'Toole does not find that there was no objective basis for the Defendants to remove the case, and therefore he denied the Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees incurred as result of the removal. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/r53rNd from Leagle.com. Donald Sullivan, Plaintiff, represented by Raven Moeslinger -- rm@mass-legal.com -- Law Office of Nicholas F. Ortiz, P.C.. Yusuke Miki, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Fritz, Fisher & Phillips, LLP, Joseph W. Ambash, Fisher & Phillips LLP & Joshua D. Nadreau, Fisher & Phillips, LLP. Gallery Automotive Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua D. Nadreau -- jfritz@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP, Jeffrey A. Fritz -- jfritz@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP & Joseph W. Ambash -- jambash@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP. GENERAL MOTORS: "Pope" Hits Share Price Drop from Emissions Fraud ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD POPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. General Motors Company, Daniel F. Akerson, Mary T. Barra, Daniel Ammann and Charles K. Stevens III, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-12185 (E.D. Mich., July 5, 2017) seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. General Motors Company (GM) designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks, crossovers and automobile parts. It is alleged of installing at least three distinct defeat devices in over 700,000 trucks with Duramax diesel engines from 2011 to 2016 in order to cheat emissions tests in the U.S. thus resulting in their trucks emitting up to five times the legal limit of nitrogen oxide pollutants. On this news, GM's share price fell $0.60, or 1.81%, to close at $32.60 on May 25, 2017. Plaintiff owns GM shares and lost substantially. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Paul F. Novak, Esq. Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. Chrysler House 719 Griswold Street, Suite 620 Detroit, MI 48826 Telephone: (313) 800-4170 Facsimile: (646) 293-7992 Email: pnovak@weitzlux.com gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com GREATBANC TRUST: "McMaken" Suit Asserts ERISA Breach ---------------------------------------------------- Michael V. McMaken, on behalf of the Chemonics International, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Greatbanc Trust Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04983, (N.D. Ill., July 5, 2017), seeks compensation for losses resulting from breaches of of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974; restoration of any profits Defendant has made through use of assets of the Plan; equitable relief; recovery for the Plan's overpayment on company stock; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit incurred; disgorgement of any fees Greatbanc received in conjunction with its services as Trustee for the Plan; as well as any earnings and profits, prejudgment interest and such other and further relief. GreatBanc is an independent trust company headquartered at 801 Warrenville Road, Suite 500, Lisle, Illinois 60532. It is the trustee for the Chemonics International, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan where Plaintiff is a participant in the Plan and is vested in shares of Chemonics allocated to his account. GreatBanc allegedly used the Plan to purchase Chemonics stocks paying more than its fair market value and took a loan from parties in interest to purchase 792,942 outstanding shares of Chemonics common stock for an aggregate price of $216,124,272, of which 18,344 shares were purchased outright and 774,598 shares were financed by the Sellers with a note that bore 3.86% interest per annum and was to be repaid over a 20-year period. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick O. Muench, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 3930 N. Lowell Ave. Chicago, IL 60641 Telephone: (847) 899-1646 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 Email: pmuench@baileyglasser.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com GOOD SHEPHERD: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Jones" Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- CASSANDRA JONES, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated v. GOOD SHEPHERD HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-00411-DJH (W.D. Ky., July 11, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Good Shepherd Healthcare Solutions, Inc., is a Kentucky corporation that operates under the assumed name corporation BrightStar of Kentucky. The Defendant is a franchisee of BrightStar Care. The Defendant is in the business of home care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 333 W Vine St., Suite 1200 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 286-8368 E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com HENKEL AG: Faces Class Action Over Check Rebates ------------------------------------------------ Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a New Jersey consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against a variety of companies, alleging negligent misrepresentation. John Sacchi filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, July 3 in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Henkel AG & Company, KgaA, Henkel Consumer Goods Inc., Henkel Corporation, The Dial Corporation, and Does 1 through 10, alleging they intentionally issued checks that did not have funds in them. According to the complaint, Sacchi was financially damaged when the defendants closed the account on which the check rebate had been drawn. Sacchi seeks trial by jury, damages, compensatory, general, incidental and consequential damages, special damages, punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement, interest, court costs and all further relief the court grants. He is represented by attorney Stephen J. Simoni, Esq. -- stephensimonilaw@gmail.com -- of Simoni Consumers Class Action Law Offices in Florham Park, New Jersey. U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey case number 3:17-cv-04889-AET-LHG [GN] IMG COLLEGE: Faces "Spielman" Over Athletes Compensation -------------------------------------------------------- Charles C. Spielman a/k/a Chris Spielman, individually and/or as an officer, Shareholder and/or Affiliate of Profectus Group, Inc., d/b/a The College Football Players Club, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. IMG College, LLC, IMG Worldwide, Inc., WME Entertainment ("WME"), d/b/a IMG, d/b/a International Management Group d/b/a Ohio State IMG Sports Marketing (collectively referred to as "IMG"); and The Ohio State University (a/k/a "OSU"), John Does 1-10, ABC Company's 1-10, Case No. 2:17- cv-00612-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, July 14, 2017), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' practice of engaging in a price-fixing conspiracy and a group boycott/refusal to deal that has unlawfully foreclosed class members from receiving compensation in connection with the commercial exploitation of their images following their cessation of intercollegiate athletic competition. The Defendants operate a collegiate sports marketing company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian K. Duncan, Esq. BKD LEGAL, LLC 119 East Granville Street Sunbury, OH 43074 Telephone: (740) 965-1347 Facsimile: (614) 386-0410 E-mail: bduncan@bkdlegal.com INDIANA BMV: Agrees to Settle Class Action Suit For $33.6-Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Perleberg, writing for Eagle Country Online, reports that the Indiana BMV has agreed to repay more than $62 million in excessive fees to settle a class-action lawsuit. Attorney Irwin Levin, who represented citizens in the lawsuit, said the BMV overcharged for driver licenses, vehicle registrations and other services between 2002 and mid-2006. A court in Marion County approved the settlement agreement this week. The $62 million includes $33.6 million the Indiana BMV began refunding last year for overcharging between 2006 and 2014. How much could you see refunded? It depends on the number and type of transactions at the BMV during the noted years. Levin said most people qualifying for a refund would be entitled to somewhere between $1 and $50. For overcharges after mid-2006, the amount owed to motorists will be applied as a credit toward future BMV transactions. Refunds for transactions before mid-2006 can be obtained by filling out an electronic form available online at http://www.in.gov/bmv/3183.htm [GN] IDT CORPORATION: JDS1 Seeks to Invalidate Straight Path Sale ------------------------------------------------------------ JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path Communications Inc., and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Straight Path Communications Inc., Plaintiff, v. IDT Corporation, The Patrick Henry Trust, Howard Jonas, Davidi Jonas, K. Chris Todd, William F. Weld and Fred S. Zeidman, Defendants and Straight Path Communications Inc., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2017-0486 (D. Del., July 5, 2017), seeks to invalidate the sale of Straight Path to AT&T. The lawsuit seeks damages resulting from breach of fiduciary duties for the unfair selling price of Straight Path stock, an indemnification against IDT and the transfer of Straight Path's IP Assets in a constructive trust, disgorgement of any ill-gotten profits, extraordinary equitable and injunctive relief, costs and disbursements of the action including reasonable attorneys' fees, accountants', consultants' and experts' fees costs, and expenses and such further relief for Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties. Straight Path is a holding company for wireless spectrum licenses and related patents, holding millimeter bandwidth licenses for 5G networks. Straight Path was previously a subsidiary of IDT Corporation, but became a standalone company following the Spin Off on July 31, 2013. In January 2017, Straight Path entered into a consent decree with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to forfeit approximately 20% of its wireless licenses, pay a $15 million fine and sell itself to AT&T and then pay 20% of the sale proceeds as a fine to the FCC. Plaintiff owns over 172,000 Straight Path shares worth nearly $32 million and seeks to assert direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Straight Path Board of Directors for manipulating the Straight Path sale process. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Lebovitch, Esq. John Vielandi, Esq. David MacIsaac, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 Tel: (212) 554-1493 Fax: (212) 554-1444 - and - Ned Weinberger, Esq. Thomas Curry, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 573-2530 JAMES RAPP: Dismissal of Suit vs. County Court Judge Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ronal Lee Gilman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court to grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned TIMOTHY H. COOPER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JAMES S. RAPP et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 17-3068 (6th Cir.). This appeal involves sanctions imposed by Ohio state-court Judge James S. Rapp while presiding over a class-action lawsuit. After Judge Rapp granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in that case, he issued monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs Cooper and both monetary and nonmonetary sanctions against his African- American attorney, Ambrose Moses III. In response, in April 2016, Cooper and Moses filed suit in federal court against Judge Rapp and the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that the sanctions were motivated by Judge Rapp's racial prejudice. The complaint alleges that the Defendants' racially discriminatory conduct during the state-court proceedings violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. As part of their request for relief, the Plaintiffs also sought an order enjoining the March 2016 sanctions hearing and the imposition of Judge Rapp's order that Moses surrender himself to the sheriff in May 2016. It is noted, however, that the requests for these specific injunctions were moot by the time the district court entered its judgment. Judge Rapp and the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas subsequently filed a motion to dismiss all of these claims under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court granted their motion on both grounds in December 2016. It first held that it lacked subject- matter jurisdiction based on both the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and on Younger abstention principles. In the alternative, the court held that Judge Rapp was entitled to absolute judicial immunity and that the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas was an entity incapable of being sued. Judge Gilman explains that Judge Rapp's actions are paradigmatically judicial. Even assuming that Judge Rapp's facial expressions and body language indicated that he was racially biased, his conclusion remains the same. As to the declaratory relief against Judge Rapp, he finds that Judge Rapp acted as a disinterested judicial adjudicator, bound to decide the issues before him according to the law. Under these circumstances, Judge Rapp is not amenable to a suit for declaratory relief under Section 1983. The district court therefore did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief against Judge Rapp. The district court also correctly noted that the Plaintiffs failed to allege that Judge Rapp violated a declaratory judgment, finds Judge Gilman. Nor did they demonstrate that declaratory relief was "unavailable," albeit, they are not entitled to such relief. The court therefore did not err in holding that Judge Rapp was immune from their claims for injunctive relief. And because Judge Rapp is entitled to judicial immunity on their claims, Judge Gilman affirmed the district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Lastly, Judge Gilman adds that the Plaintiffs similarly fail to address with any specificity the district court's dismissal of their claims against the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas. But even if they did not waive their right to appeal this issue, the court correctly concluded that the Wyandot County Court of Pleas is not a proper party, because it lacks an independent legal existence and thus is incapable of being sued. For these reasons, Judge Gilman affirmed the judgment of the district court. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 opinion is available at https://is.gd/Ss0U4P from Leagle.com. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Seek Answers on Mesh Case Funds ------------------------------------------------------------- Joanne McCarthy, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that women pelvic mesh victims suing Johnson & Johnson in one of Australia's largest health class action legal cases are seeking urgent answers after a report saying the multinational drug company has reduced the pool of assets available if more than 700 women win. Finance commentator Michael West said an investigation of Johnson & Johnson's tax affairs and financial statements shows a deed of cross guarantee between seven of the company's subsidiaries has been allowed to lapse, potentially restricting available funds if the women's case succeeds. The company's legal firm advised the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in a letter uncovered during the investigation, Mr West said. Until 2017 the seven subsidiaries had guaranteed each others' debts. The investigation also revealed the subsidiaries had failed to file accounts, in breach of the Corporations Act. One of the women registered in the class action, Jo Manion, said women were shocked by the report and had contacted their legal firm, Shine Lawyers, for answers. "Johnson & Johnson's record of accountability on mesh is not good so we are concerned by this report and we want to know what's going on," Ms Manion said. "I think it's fair to say that the history of women and Johnson & Johnson on mesh is that they just want the whole issue to go away." Johnson & Johnson communications director Meshlin Khouri did not respond directly to Mr West's claim that the lapsed deed of cross guarantee would restrict available funds if the women win. In a statement on July 23 to the Newcastle Herald, Ms Khouri said the company did not agree that matters raised by Mr West had been "properly reported", but they had been "addressed and resolved with ASIC" and were "unrelated to the litigation". "The financial position of Johnson & Johnson Pty Ltd and its subsidiaries, including Johnson & Johnson Medical Pty Ltd, has not changed as a consequence." Ms Khouri said the company believed the pelvic mesh class action would "show we have acted ethically and responsibly in the research, development and supply of these products". In his report Mr West noted that Johnson & Johnson paid a "reasonable amount of tax" when compared with other multinationals operating in Australia. Over 10 years the company paid $238 million in income tax based on $12 billion in revenue, he found, in an investigation of 20 multinationals sponsored by GetUp! and the Tax Justice Network. In America more than 50,000 women are suing the company because of serious injuries they allege occurred after mesh surgery. Johnson & Johnson announced it would appeal a $20 million judgment awarded to one woman in April, after a jury found the company's TVT-Secur mesh device was defectively designed and caused the woman's injuries. The jury also found the company failed to provide adequate warnings about the risks. TVT-Secur is one of nine Johnson & Johnson mesh devices subject to the Australian class action, which was cleared for use in Australia in October, 2006 but withdrawn by the company and cancelled by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in May, 2012. Johnson & Johnson continues to market three incontinence mesh devices in Australia that are implanted via the vagina, all classified as IIb or medium to high risk by the TGA, after satisfying requirements of safety and efficacy. [GN] KONG TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Certification in "Opperman" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MARC OPPERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KONG TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Regarding False Advertising Law and Related Claims. This is a putative class action challenging Apple's alleged misrepresentations regarding the security features on certain Apple devices. The Plaintiffs allege that, between July 10, 2008 and February 2012, they owned one or more of three Apple products -- the iPhone, iPad, and/or iPod touch ("iDevices"). They further allege that Apple engaged in a mass marketing campaign in which it consciously and continuously misrepresented its iDevices as secure, and that the personal information contained on iDevices could not be taken without their owners' consent. They Plaintiffs and the putative class allege they overpaid for their iDevices in reliance on Apple's misrepresentations. In February 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification against Path and Apple for their intrusion upon seclusion claim against Path and for aiding and abetting against Apple, which was granted in part and denied in part. On Aug. 23, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for class certification. They seek to certify the class against Apple with regard to the Plaintiffs' California's False and Misleading Advertising Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, deceit, and Unfair Competition Law claims, of all United States residents who, prior to Feb. 8, 2012 purchased an iDevice of the following models: iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4s, iPad, iPad 2 or the second through fourth generations of the iPod Touch. Apple opposes the motion for class certification, arguing that the Plaintiffs have not established predominance under Rule 23(b)(3); that they have not demonstrated that damages can be measured, as required by Comcast Corp. v. Behrend; and that the proposed class contains uninjured members. Having now reviewed the body of evidence offered by the Plaintiffs in support of class certification, Judge Tigar finds they have failed to demonstrate that Apple's privacy-related marketing was sufficiently extensive to support an inference of class-wide exposure. They have also failed to demonstrate that class members were exposed to the materials containing allegedly misleading representations about privacy. Accordingly, they have failed to demonstrate predominance. Furthermore, Judge Tigar finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed damage model fails to satisfy the predominance requirement for the additional reason that it does not comport with Plaintiffs' theory of liability. Comcast requires that a model purporting to serve as evidence of damages in this class action must measure only those damages attributable to that theory. If the model does not even attempt to do that, it cannot possibly establish that damages are susceptible of measurement across the entire class for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3). Because Judge Tigar concluded that the Plaintiffs have not established predominance or demonstrated a feasible way of measuring damages, he denied certification. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/ogI3yf from Leagle.com. Marc Opperman, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP. Marc Opperman, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Judy Long, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Claire Moses, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Gentry Hoffman, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Steve Dean, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Alicia Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Alan Beueshasen, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Scott Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Greg Varner, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Rachelle King, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Kong Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Casas, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Jedediah Wakefield, Fenwick & West LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP. Twitter, Inc., Defendant, represented by James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Lauren Beth Cohen, Perkins Coie LLP, Timothy L. Alger, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., John Randall Tyler, Perkins Coie LLP, Julie Erin Schwartz, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP, Ryan T. Mrazik, Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP. Apple Inc, Defendant, represented by Alan D. Albright, Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich LLP, Clayton Cole James, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jessica Adler Black Livingston, Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac vice, Jessica S. Ou, Gibson Dunn, Robert B. Hawk, Hogan Lovells US LLP & Stacy R. Hovan, Hogan Lovells US LLP. Yelp! Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP, Peter D. Kennedy, George & Donaldson, L.L.P., Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP. Instagram, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason, Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Michael G. Rhodes, Cooley LLP. Foursquare Labs, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Frank McDowell, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP, Molly A. Smolen, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP. Gowalla Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Krista Lee Baughman, Dhillon Law Group Inc., Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Micah R. Jacobs, Dhillon Law Group, Inc., Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP, Rachel Kung-Lan Loh, Dhillon Law Group, Inc. & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP. Foodspotting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP, Peter D. Kennedy, George & Donaldson, L.L.P., Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP. Kik Interactive, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason, Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael G. Rhodes, Cooley LLP, Christopher Brian Durbin, Cooley LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Erin Elisa Goodsell, Cooley LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP. Instagram, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Dean Brown, Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Erin Elisa Goodsell, Cooley LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby Fenwick & West LLP. LA STANZA: Accused by Altamirano of Not Paying Min. and OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO ALTAMIRANO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. LA STANZA NYC LLC d/b/a La Stanza, HOUSE OF LASAGNA, INC. d/b/a House of Lasagna, AVE. S. RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a Domenico's and d/b/a Fagiolini, SALMON RIVER PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a Salmon River, LA PICCOLINA, INC. d/b/a Piccolino, JOHN C O'BRIEN a/k/a Jack O'Brien, MARIA O'BRIEN, and GABRIELE RANZATO, Case No. 1:17-cv-05234 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by, among other things, failing to pay their employees minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. La Stanza NYC LLC, doing business as La Stanza, is a domestic limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of New York with a principal address at 334B Lexington Avenue, in New York City. House of Lasagna, Inc., doing business as House of Lasagna, is a New York domestic business corporation with a principal address at 334 Lexington Avenue, in New York City. Ave. S. Restaurant Corp., doing business as Domenico's and doing business as Fagiolini, is a New York domestic business corporation with a principal address at 120 E 40th Street, in New York City. Salmon River Partners, LLC, doing business as Salmon River, is a domestic limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of New York with a principal address at 120 E 40th Street, in New York City. La Piccolina, Inc., doing business as Piccolino, is a New York domestic limited liability company with a principal address at 120 E 40th Street, in New York City. The Individual Defendants are officers, directors, managers, majority shareholders or owners of the Corporate Defendants. The Defendants operate a group of Italian restaurants doing business variously as La Stanza, House of Lasagna, Domenico's, Fagiolini, Salmon River, and Piccolino.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com LURE GROUP: "Ferguson" Suit Seeks to Recover Withheld Tips ---------------------------------------------------------- Cair Ferguson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Lure Group, Billiard Balls Management LLC, Louis Paloubis, Aristotle Hatzigeorgiou, Anahid Hatzigeorgiou and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No. 156054/2017 (N.Y. Sup., July 6, 2017), seeks to recover unlawfully retained tips and gratuities owed pursuant to New York Labor Law and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Defendants operate nightclub, restaurant and catering venues located in the State of New York, commonly known as Slate NY, Governors' Club, Clinton Hall and Ambrose Beer and Lobster. [BN] Ferguson worked for Defendants as a bartender from approximately November 2015 through approximately May 2016 at Defendants' Slate NY location. Plaintiff is represented by: Laura R. Reznick, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Leeds Brown Law, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Tel: (516) 873-9550 MASTERCARD: Freshfields Wins Success in Antitrust Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Global Legal Post reports that Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has had a major success after the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled against certifying a US-style GBP14 bn opt-out consumer damages antitrust class actions against its client MasterCard. Mr Justice Roth, CAT President, ruled against allowing the collective proceedings application on the basis that claimants from potentially disparate groups of claimants could not actually form a single class action for the purposes of this claim. The former UK chief financial services ombudsman Walter Merricks had been seeking damages for 46 million UK consumers in relation to multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) charged to retailers which he argued had resulted in people being unfairly charged for alomost 18 years from 1992 to 2008. First of a kind This would have been the first collective damages action of its kind and was one of the first to be filed under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which was set up to allow US style opt-out group damages claims in the UK. Mr Merricks said: "The new collective action regime was introduced by the Consumer Rights Act to overcome the difficulty for consumers seeking to recover losses from competition law infringements. I am concerned that this new regime, designed to benefit consumers, may never get off the ground." Disappointing He added: "It is disappointing that the Tribunal determined that even if I could identify accurately the loss suffered by all 46 million consumers, the fact that I could not precisely calculate the individualised loss for each of those 46 million consumers, means consumers should get nothing at all." [GN] MASTERCARD: Court Blocks $18-Bil. British Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Kirstin Ridley, writing for Reuters, reports that a 14 billion pound ($18 billion) class action lawsuit against MasterCard for allegedly overcharging more than 45 million people in Britain over a 16-year period was blocked by a British court on July 21. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), a newly-empowered court that oversees Britain's fledgling class action regime, ruled that it would not grant the necessary collective proceedings order for the case to proceed to trial. Had it been allowed to proceed, the case would have been the largest and most complex in British legal history and would have tested the limits of the new Consumer Rights Act, which introduced U.S.-style "opt-out" collective class actions for breaches of UK or European Union competition law in 2015. MasterCard welcomed the judgment, saying the claim was "completely unsuitable" to be brought under the collective action regime. Law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan launched the case on behalf of adults in Britain after MasterCard lost a drawn-out appeal against a 2007 European Commission decision that ruled its fees were anti-competitive. The case centered on so-called interchange fees, the charges levied by credit and debit card companies such as Mastercard on merchants' banks, which card companies say cover the costs of operating card services, security and innovation. It alleged these fees were a significant cost for retailers and were passed on through increased prices of goods and services to all UK consumers, including those who paid in cash and not just MasterCard holders. London-based Walter Merricks, a lawyer who once led the Financial Ombudsman Service group that handles consumer disputes with banks and who is the representative named on the proposed action, said he was considering an appeal with his advisers. "The new collective action regime was introduced by the Consumer Rights Act to overcome the difficulty for consumers seeking to recover losses from competition law infringements," he said. "I am concerned that this new regime, designed to benefit consumers, may never get off the ground." He added that concerns cited by the tribunal, which included the difficulties in providing evidence that MasterCard fees were passed on to consumers and in precisely calculating individual losses for so many consumers, could have been overcome. The planned lawsuit had been dubbed by one lawyer the "perfect exam question" for Britain's CAT, nominated in 2015 to oversees the country's maiden "opt-out" class action lawsuits in antitrust cases. Under the regime, UK-based members of a defined group are automatically bound into legal action unless they opt out. Critics say such regimes encourage claims without merit. But others argue they are designed to offer a more effective and economic route to compensation for UK-based consumers and businesses who fall victim to anti-competitive conduct and saves on hefty advertising costs to rally a large group together. London's High Court ruled in January that MasterCard had charged interchange fees at a lawful level and without restricting competition in a similar dispute with retailers. [GN] MERCEDES-BENZ: Sued in California Over Illegal Defeat Device ------------------------------------------------------------ Hagop Bazrganian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Daimler AG, Daimler Trucks North America LLC, Detroit Diesel Corporation, Daimler Vans USA, LLC, Daimler Vehicle Innovations, LLC, Daimler North America Corporation, Calstar Motors, and Carrie Kinney, Case No. BC668527 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the California law and Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") standards, specifically by outfitting and selling Mercedes' Diesel vehicles equipped with the illegal Defeat Device horn to detect when the vehicle is undergoing official emissions testing and turns full emissions controls on only during the test. The Defendants manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted Mercedes-brand vehicles throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas V. Girardi, Esq. David R. Lira, Esq. Christopher T. Aumais, Esq. Ashkahn Mohamadi, Esq. GIRARDI | KEESE 1126 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-0211 Facsimile: (213)481-1554 MONSANTO COMPANY: "Turner" Suit Transferred to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on May 16, 2017 captioned Ronnie L. Turner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 7:17-cv-00093 was transferred from the District of Georgia Middle to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv- 03979-VC to the proceeding. The case is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the world's leading producer of glyphosate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene C. Brooks IV, Esq. BROOKS LAW FIRM PO Box 9545 Savannah, GA 31412 Telephone: (912) 233-9696 E-mail: gbrooks@brooks-law.com MURPHY OIL: Justices to Hear NLRB Class Action Waiver Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- Braden Campbell, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has set Oct. 2 as the date for oral arguments in a closely watched battle over the legality of arbitration agreements requiring workers to waive their rights to file class or collective actions against their employers, according to a notice filed on July 19. The case stems from a series of rulings by the National Labor Relations Board that such agreements violate National Labor Relations Act provisions guaranteeing the rights of workers to act collectively to improve their working conditions. Employers often use class action waivers as a tool to reduce legal exposure by keeping labor disputes in arbitration rather than in court as class actions, which are more costly to fight and resolve. Employee advocates argue these agreements unfairly block workers from having their cases heard in public and as a group. The justices in January granted three petitions for certiorari asking whether class action waivers are legal, agreeing to settle a question that has polarized the circuit courts. The Seventh and Ninth Circuits have agreed with the NLRB in cases involving software company Epic Systems Corp. and accounting firm Ernst & Young, respectively, and the Fifth Circuit has rejected the labor board's position in a suit involving gas exploration company Murphy Oil Corp. Raymours Furniture Co. employees had asked the high court to review a Second Circuit decision that sent their proposed wage class action to arbitration, but the Supreme Court did not address their petition. The justices agreed to take the case at an uncertain time for the NLRB's stance, which was laid out by liberal board members nominated by President Obama. The doctrine is on the shortlist of policies attorneys expect will be rolled back when Republicans hold a majority of seats on the labor board. A Senate subcommittee on July 19 approved the nominations of management-side labor attorney William Kaplan and government attorney Marvin Kaplan, who would create such a majority if confirmed, but Senate leaders have not set a date for a floor vote. The U.S. Department of Justice has already come out in defense of class action waivers, arguing in an amicus brief that the NLRB rulings contradict the Federal Arbitration Act's presumption that arbitration agreements are valid unless blocked by contract law. The DOJ argued the opposite last year on the NLRB's behalf. The DOJ's brief echoes those of Murphy Oil, Epic and Ernst & Young, which filed their opening briefs with the high court. Murphy Oil and Epic Systems together argued the FAA's clarity on arbitration agreements and the NLRA's ambiguity -- the act does not discuss arbitration agreements explicitly -- mean the former should trump the latter. Ernst & Young made similar arguments, saying nothing in the language of the NLRA or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended the NLRA to supersede the FAA. Nor is the NLRA's purpose -- to smooth employee organizing and collective bargaining -- at odds with that of arbitration, it argued. Representatives for the NLRB, Ernst & Young, Murphy Oil and Epic did not immediately respond on July 20 to requests for comment. Ernst & Young is represented by Rex S. Heinke, Esq. -- rheinke@akingump.com -- Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. -- gknopp@akingump.com -- Pratik A. Shah, Esq. -- pshah@akingump.com -- and Daniel L. Nash, Esq. -- dnash@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, and Kannon K. Shanmugam, Esq. -- kshanmugam@wc.com -- Allison Jones Rushing, Esq. -- arushing@wc.com -- A. Joshua Podoll, Esq. -- apodoll@wc.com -- William T. Marks, Esq. -- wmarks@wc.com -- and Eden Schiffman, Esq. -- eschiffman@wc.com -- of Williams & Connolly LLP. Epic Systems and Murphy Oil are represented by Thomas P. Schmidt, Esq. -- Thomas.schmidt@hoganlovells.com -- Neal Kumar Katyal, Esq. -- neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com -- Frederick Liu, Esq. -- Frederick.liu@hoganlovells.com -- Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak, Esq. -- colleen.rohsinzdak@hoganlovells.com -- and Daniel J.T. Schuker, Esq. -- daniel.schuker@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan Lovells. Epic Systems is also represented by Noah A. Finkel, Esq. -- nfinkel@scroggins.com -- and Andrew Scroggins, Esq. -- ascroggins@seyfarth.com -- of Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Murphy Oil is also represented by Jeffrey A. Schwartz, Esq. -- schwartzj@jacksonlewis.com -- and Daniel D. Schudroff, Esq. -- SchudroffD@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis PC. The DOJ is represented by acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall, Esq. -- Jeffrey.wall@usdoj.gov -- Deputy Solicitor General Malcom L. Stewart, Esq. -- Malcolm.stewart@usdoj.com -- and Assistant to the Solicitor General Allon Kedem, Esq. -- allon.kedem@usdoj.com Counsel information for the NLRB was not available. The cases are Ernst & Young LLP et al. v. Stephen Morris et al., case number 16-300, NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA Inc., case number 16- 307, and Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, case number 16-285, before the Supreme Court of the United States. [GN] NANDU THONDAVADI: "Brown" Sues Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------- Dean Brown, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nandu Thondavadi, Dhru Desai, Thomas E. Sawyer, Philip Firrek and Eric Gurr, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv- 04908 (D. N.J., July 5, 2017) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants are members of the board of directors of Quadrant 4. The latter provides cloud based platform-as-a-service and software-as-a-service products to the health insurance, media, and education verticals in the United States. According to the complaint, Thondavadi and Desai, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Quadrant 4 respectively understated the company's liabilities and inflated its revenues and assets and evaded scrutiny by providing forged and falsified financial statements. They were arrested in November 30, 2016. On this news, shares of Quadrant 4 fell $0.16 per share or over 80% from its previous closing price to close at $0.03 per share on December 1, 2016, damaging investors, including the plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com NINE WEST: Covell Files Suit Over Deceptive Sale Prices ------------------------------------------------------- Brittany Covell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nine West Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01371 (S.D. Cal., July 5, 2017), seeks damages, restitution and disgorgement of all profits and unjust enrichment that Nine West retained from Plaintiff as a result of its unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices. The Plaintiff further seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective advertising campaign, attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code, California's False Advertising Law, Business and Professions Code, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. Nine West Holdings, Inc. maintains the Nine West brand, a fashion line of women's clothing, shoes, handbags and other accessories. Defendant operates Nine West retail and outlet stores and the www.ninewest.com website and advertises, markets and sells its merchandise in California and throughout the United States. Covell purchased a pair of Nine West Stefao shoes for $44.50 at a Nine West outlet store located at the Carlsbad Premium Outlets in San Diego. The price tag showed a suggested retail price of $89.00, thus implying a 50% discount. However, Plaintiff observed that this scheme was in effect for more than three months and really never reverted to its suggested retail price, thus implying that the discount was a farce. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 402 W Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 756-6994 Fax: (619) 756-6991 Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com OCWEN FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $49-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------- Ben Lane, writing for Housing Wire, reports Ocwen Financial will pay at least $49 million to settle a class action lawsuit over the nonbank restating its 2013 and 2014 earnings after its auditor found a potential "material weakness" in the way it valued and recorded a financial transaction. Ocwen disclosed the settlement on July 20 in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The settlement stems from Ocwen misstating its net income for the last three quarters of 2013 and the first quarter of 2014 due to a flaw in the company's system. That flaw also led to Ocwen paying a $2 million fine to the SEC after an investigation found that the company misstated its financials on several occasions by using what the SEC called "flawed, undisclosed methodology" to value mortgage servicing rights that were sold to an Ocwen-associated company, Home Loan Servicing Solutions. That SEC investigation also found that Ocwen's close relationship with Altisource Residential, Altisource Asset Management Corp, Altisource Portfolio Solutions, and Home Loan Servicing Solutions and William Erbey's former role as chairman of each company contributed to the faulty financial dealings. Erbey founded Ocwen, and served as chairman of the board of Ocwen, Altisource Residential, Altisource Asset Management, Altisource Portfolio Solutions and Home Loan Servicing Solutions until the relationship between those companies became the subject of intense investigation by the New York Department of Financial Services. That NYDFS investigation led to Erbey being forced to resign from his positions with each company and a $150 million fine for Ocwen. The SEC stated that Ocwen's internal controls failed to prevent "conflicts of interest" involving Erbey because Erbey did not recuse himself from dealings between the various companies he chaired, despite Ocwen's claim to its investors that Erbey was required to recuse himself from those dealings. Now, Ocwen will pay at least $49 million to settle a class action suit related to those issues. According to Ocwen, the nonbank and the class members reached a settlement after a mediated settlement process. In addition to paying $49 million to the class members, Ocwen also agreed to give $7 million in company stock to the plaintiffs. Specifically, Ocwen agreed to give 2.5 million shares of the company's stock to the class members, provided the shares have a total value of $7 million based on the company's stock price over a five-day period. However, if the value of the 2.5 million shares does not equal $7 million because Ocwen's stock value is too low, Ocwen may be required to give the class members more shares. Alternatively, Ocwen may simply give the class members an additional $7 million in lieu of the shares. In its filing, Ocwen said that it expects insurance to cover between $12 million to $14 million of the $49 million payout. Ocwen also said that it estimates the net pre-tax expense impact of the settlement on its earnings to be between $34 million and $36 million. "While the company believes that it has sound legal and factual defenses, Ocwen agreed to this settlement in order to avoid the uncertain outcome of trial and the additional expense and demands on the time of its senior management that a trial would involve," the company said in its filing. The settlement agreement now goes to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for approval. Ocwen cautions that there can be "no assurance" that the settlement will be finalized and approved by the court. "In the event the settlement in principle is not ultimately finalized and approved, the litigation would continue and we would vigorously defend the allegations made against Ocwen," the company added. "If our efforts to defend against such claims were not successful, our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected." [GN] PANAGIA TINOS: "Pospoy" Seeks Spread-of-Hours, Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Pospoy, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Panagia Tinos Corp., Kostas Psillis, Michael Psillis and Margarita "Doe," Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04031 (E.D. N.Y., July 6, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages, spread-of-hours premium for each day Plaintiff worked ten or more hours, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, compensation for failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring and failure to provide paystubs and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and the NY Wage Theft Prevention Act. Pospoy is a resident of Queens and was employed as a dishwasher and kitchen prep worker by Defendants Panagia Tinos Corp. who operates Lollipop's Diner at 153-31 Cross Island Pkwy., Whitestone, NY 11357. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. Hang & Associates, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Tel: (718) 353-8588 Email: jhang@hanglaw.com PERSHING LLC: Court Dismisses "Hemphill" Suit Without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Julie A. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted without prejudice the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction the case captioned REBECCA HEMPHILL, Plaintiff, v. PERSHING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-2557-JAR-GLR (D. Kan.). The Plaintiff brings this action alleging jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act on behalf of herself and other investors who owned tax-deferred brokerage accounts that earned more than $1,000 of unrelated business taxable income in 2014. The Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and other putative class members incurred more than $5 million in damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to timely file Internal Revenue Service Form 990-T filings for the relevant accounts. The Complaint asserts claims against Pershing for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, and seeks actual damages in the form of penalties and interest charged as well as fees collected by Pershing for preparation of the tax returns. The proposed class is defined as all Retirement Account owners/holders for which Pershing was or is the custodian or similar fiduciary role over the Retirement Accounts invested in Kinder Morgan limited partnerships during 2014, for which Pershing failed to timely file a Form 990-T filing for the year 2014. The putative class consists of approximately 5,052 Retirement Accounts. This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (Doc. 20). The Plaintiff was permitted to conduct discovery on the jurisdictional issues, and supplemental briefs were submitted. Pershing challenges the Plaintiff's allegation of jurisdiction, and calculates the amount in controversy as far less than the requisite $5 million. Specifically, it argues that the maximum amount in controversy is the Gross Tax Related Liabilities ($2,535,561) plus the Tax Return Fees ($721,100), which equals $3,256,661. In support, Pershing attaches the 990T-Return for each of the 2,222 Retirement Accounts that incurred a Tax-Related Liability in 2014. Pershing states that the remaining 2,830 Retirement Accounts for which 990T-Returns were filed for tax year 2014 did not earn taxable UBTI or incur taxes, penalties, or interest. Thus, it submitted evidence showing more than half of the putative class did not incur actual damages beyond the fee paid to Pershing, resulting in an amount in controversy approximately $1.7 million short of the requisite $5 million. Judge Robinson held that a reasonable estimate of the amount in controversy at the time the lawsuit was filed is $3,256,661, as substantiated by sworn testimony and production of the 2,222 990T- Returns. The Plaintiff has neither rebutted this evidence nor identified any additional damages that could have been incurred by members of the putative class that would account for the $1,700,000 deficit. Because the Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden that it is not a legal certainty that the class will not recover more than $5 million, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Therefore, Judge Robinson granted without prejudice the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/lGASk7 from Leagle.com. Rebecca Hemphill, Plaintiff, represented by Gary J. Willnauer -- gwillnauer@mwcattorneys.com -- Morrow Willnauer Church, LLC. Pershing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Leopold -- chris.leopold@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP & Scott C. Hecht -- scott.hecht@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP. PJ OPS IDAHO: "Edwards" Suit Seeks Reimbursements, Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Cory Edwards, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PJ Ops Idaho, LLC, Papa John's International, Inc. and Tom Wylie, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 00283 (D. Idaho, July 5, 2017), seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on failure to pay minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and Idaho wage law. PJ Ops Idaho, LLC and Tom Wylie own and operate Papa John's franchise locations in the Boise, Idaho area as well as in Kentucky, Colorado, Louisiana, and Kansas. Edwards worked for Defendants as a delivery driver at their Papa John's Pizza restaurant at 1323 Broadway in Boise, Idaho. Defendants improperly applied a tip credit to delivery driver wages and failed to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery expenses, thereby rendering their compensation below the minimum wage rate. Plaintiff also claims overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Hepworth, Esq. HEPWORTH LAW OFFICES 2229 W. State St. Boise, ID 83702 Tel: (208) 333-0702 Fax: (208) 246-8655 - and - Andrew Biller, Esq. Andrew Kimble, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Tel: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: abiller@msdlegal.com akimble@msdlegal.com PRET A MANGER: Escobar Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY ESCOBAR, TONAKIA MOSHA EVANS, and DIANNA ABRAMOVA, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. PRET A MANGER (USA) LIMITED, and JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100, Case No. 1:17-cv-05227 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2017), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid compensation due to time shaving, (3) liquidated damages and (4) attorneys' fees and costs. Pret A Manger (USA) Limited is a foreign business corporation doing business in New York State with a principal executive office located in New York City. The Doe Defendants are subsidiaries of and 100% owned by the Company. The Defendants operate a food services enterprise under the trade name "Pret A Manger." The Defendants' food services enterprise operates restaurants throughout New York, (as of the day of the complaint, 49 locations in New York City) as well as stores in Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Boston.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com anne@leelitigation.com PURDUE PHARMA: Settlement May Become Precursor to Gov't Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Ausness, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that on July 19 an Ontario court approved a $20-million settlement to around 2,000 Canadians who had brought a class-action suit against Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, a powerful opioid drug. Not only does the settlement provide compensation to the Canadian victims of opioid addiction, but it may become a precursor to lawsuits by provincial and local governments. This has now started to occur in the United States and will potentially affect not only Purdue Pharma, but other opioid manufacturers, distributors and pharmacy chains as well. This is not necessarily good news. While governmental entities and individuals who have suffered harm deserve compensation, lawsuits that snowball out of control threaten the continued availability not only of painkillers, but of other beneficial drugs as well. Purdue Pharma began marketing OxyContin in 1996. Its principal feature was a patented time-release mechanism that allowed its analgesic ingredient, oxycodone, to be released over a 12-hour period. Although oxycodone prescriptions at the time were generally limited to cancer patients, Purdue and other manufacturers aggressively promoted opioid drugs for the treatment of arthritis and chronic back pain. They also assured doctors and the Food and Drug Administration that these products were not addictive if used properly. Nevertheless, widespread abuse of the drug occurred in the United States and Canada. The problem of opioid addiction in the United States first came to the attention of the general public with the publication of a New York Times article in 2001. This resulted in a stream of individual lawsuits and class actions against Purdue Pharma shortly thereafter. Various liability theories were invoked, including negligence, defective design, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, violation of consumer protection laws, negligent marketing, fraud, conspiracy and "malicious conduct." For the most part, these lawsuits were not successful because Purdue Pharma was able to raise a number of defences based on expiration of the statute of limitations, misuse and lack of causation. These defences were effective primarily because courts were not sympathetic to plaintiffs whom they considered to be drug abusers. However, the situation began to change when the federal government became involved. In the fall of 2001, the United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia began a criminal investigation of Purdue Pharma. In 2007, the company and three of its executives plead guilty to "misbranding a drug" and agreed to pay criminal fines and civil penalties of more than $600-million (U.S.). Lawsuits were also filed by West Virginia and Kentucky and eventually settled. However, in recent years, other states and cities in the United States have brought suits against drug manufacturers, such as Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson and Teva Pharmaceuticals, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Allergan PLC and Actavis Pharma. These lawsuits have also targeted distributors, such as McKesson Corporation, AmerisourceBergen and Cardinal Health, as well as retail outlets such as Walgreens, Rite Aid and CVS. To date, approximately 25 states, counties and cities have begun legal actions against one or more of these corporations and more of them are likely to join in. So how will it all end? One possibility is that all of the parties will get together and reach some sort of global settlement as occurred in the tobacco litigation of the 1990s. To be sure, there are parallels between today's lawsuits and the tobacco litigation of yesteryear. In both cases, the product in question was dangerous and it imposed substantial economic costs on health insurers and governmental entities, the manufacturers engaged in advertising and publicity campaigns designed to mislead consumers and others about the risks of consuming these products, and the defendants pursued a hard-nosed "no settlement" policy that resulted in some early victories. Finally, at least in the United States, state and local officials hired outside lawyers to handle the litigation on a contingent fee basis. However, there are also important differences. First of all, tobacco products had relatively low utility while pharmaceutical products, including opioids, are essential to the treatment of disease. Second, tobacco products were subject to minimal regulation by the government while drugs are closely regulated by the FDA. Third, and perhaps most importantly, there were only 50 or so plaintiffs in the U.S. tobacco litigation while there could be hundreds, or even thousands, of cities and states (or provinces) involved in today's drug litigation, making a global settlement much less likely. Is litigation a viable tool for curbing bad corporate behaviour? Probably not. In the past, some companies have exercised extremely bad judgment or even committed criminal acts. While it is comforting to punish them, we should realize that companies like banks, oil companies and pharmaceutical companies provide the public with useful, and even essential, products. [GN] SCRUB INC: Fails to Properly Pay Cabin Cleaners, Adames Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Carmelo Adames, Marisol Adames-Reyes, Karen Agosto, Alma Aguiniga, Francisco Andino, Mildred Aponte-Lebron, Rosa Arellano, Melinda Arocho, Marta Arroyo, Brittnee Bannister, Tianna Barber, Tanisha Barber, Fatima Barkati, Andrew Borodziuk, Laura Boyd, Christian Bracero-Vazquez, Ma Brigida-Garcia, Felipe Cabral, Humberto Carillo-Lopez, Brenda Carter, Dewandee Carter, Angel Casiano, Bernalisse Castellano, Tatiana Chavez, David Cienke, Tiffany Clark, Schaniqua Cobbins, Shamece Cole, Gretta Coleman, Loretta Coleman, Belquis Colindres-Mejia, Addisalem Dagnew, Jameka Dean, Katarzyna Demczuk, Dayami Diaz, Stephanie Diaz-Conner, Saw-Sar Doe-Wah, Imesha Doll, Katrina Duckins, Tyenika Effinger, Nadia Estefania, Victor Estrada-Mendoza, Jessica Feliciano, Paul Figueroa-Ocampo, Albena Georgieva, Santosi Ghalley, Lucely Grueso, Ashley Harris, Diana Hernandez, Viviana Hernandez, Prince Hill, Ladana Horton, Tierra Hughes, Janesha Jacobs, Nazik Jebrouni, Angelique Jenkins, Latasha Johnson, Vera Johnson, Tasha Jones, Jasmine Kellar, Mbowa Kitenge, Czeslawa Kuziora, Yolanda Leonard, Lauri Lopez, Grisel Lozada, Khin Lwin, Maria Martinez, Priscila Martos-Barreto, Francisco Mata-Hernandez, Heather Mccallum, Sarath Meas, Elizabeth Medina, Nilton G. Medina, Arichely Mendez, Alexandra Mendoza, Javier Mendoza-Perez, Maria Michel, Mohamed Mohamed, Mariah Moncure, Cassandra Monroe, Carolina Montes, Tamatha Moore, Stephen Mwai, Jessica Myles, Emily Naquin, Hassan Nejatsabet, Omolara Odebunmi, Lynette Olivo, Gloria Orellana, Ieashia Parnell, Xiomara Pastoriza, Alisa Patinla, Irina Pismenny, Janet Pleasant, Araminta Ramos-Vega, Ana Reinoso, Rosa Reyes, Sidney Rivera, Cynthia Rivera, Chiketa Robertson, Tierra Robinson, Cecila Rodriguez, Jules Roldan, Jeanelle Rosa, Vanessa Ruiz, Sandra Sagastume, Abigail Salgado, Alizet Santiago, Tyisha Scurlock, Angel Segura, Lolita Smith, Kibitu Sori, Dimitrinka Tacheva, Dil Tamang, Angelica Taylor, Degitu Tessema, Luis Torres, Graciela Torres-Vences, Brittney Turner, Wirdalys Velez-Matos, Lisbeth Vera-Zambrano, Claudia Villa, Shaquana Vincent, Keosha Walker, Theresa Watson, Ashley M. Wells, Tahara Wells, Carolyn White, Francis Williams, Chamara Williams and Manual Williams v. SCRUB, INC.; TERESA KAMINSKA; and MARK RATHKE, Case No. 1:17-cv- 05135 (N.D. Ill., July 11, 2017), is brought under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, as well as individual actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act for each of the named Plaintiffs. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs' clock times as reflected on punch cards were improperly and detrimentally rounded by the Defendants, and they were otherwise not properly compensated. In addition, each of the Plaintiffs and the proposed class members were denied the full extent of their statutorily- required meal breaks, and were not paid for work performed during their unpaid meal breaks. The Defendants' practices caused injury to the Plaintiffs because they deprived the cabin cleaners of their earned wages and overtime, the Plaintiffs contend. Scrub, Inc. is a janitorial service contractor founded in 1969. The Company is incorporated in Illinois and its corporate headquarters are located in Chicago. The Company provides janitorial cleaning services to purchasers of janitorial cleaning services at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, including cleaning of airplanes. Teresa Kaminska is an owner, the vice president of operations, the president and a manager of Scrub. Mark S. Rathke has been the General Manager and a partial owner of Scrub.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq. JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C. 221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 789-9700 Facsimile: (312) 789-9702 E-mail: jeff@jgbrownlaw.com - and - Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq. GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 546-5056 E-mail: gdunn@gjdlaw.com SERVE U BRANDS: "Lusk" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages for Drivers -------------------------------------------------------------- SKYLER LUSK, TIA COUNCIL, VIKTORIA O'BRIEN, AND JUSTIN BYROAD, on behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated v. SERVE U BRANDS, INC., INSOMNIA COOKIES, LLC, AND SETH BERKOWITZ, Case No. 6:17-cv-06451 (W.D.N.Y., July 11, 2017), seeks to recover damages in the form of unpaid wages and pay, as well as injunctive relief and declaratory relief on behalf of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated delivery drivers, who work or have worked at the Defendants' Insomnia Cookies locations. Serve U Brands, Inc., is a business corporation registered in New York with its principal place of business at 440 Park Avenue South, in New York City. Serve U Brands is a hospitality group that owns and operates Insomnia Cookies. Seth Berkowitz is the founder and CEO of Insomnia Cookies and is also the CEO of Serve U Brands. Insomnia Cookies, LLC, is a limited liability corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business also at 440 Park Avenue South. Insomnia Cookies is a subsidiary of Serve U Brands, which runs a chain of more than 100 Insomnia Cookies locations across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Nelson Thomas, Esq. Michael J. Lingle, Esq. Sarah E. Cressman, Esq. Jessica L. Lukasiewicz, Esq. THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 Telephone: (585) 272-0540 E-mail: nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com scressman@theemploymentattorneys.com jlukasiewicz@theemploymentattorneys.com SILVER LINING: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Altier Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JONNA ALTIER, an individual on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, PO Box 145, Corning, Ohio 43730 v. A SILVER LINING LLC, c/o Kelly Tilley, 3580 Frenchpark Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43231, Case No. 2:17-cv-00599-GCS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, July 11, 2017), challenges the Defendant's alleged policies and practices that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act, including failure to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 in certain workweeks. A Silver Lining LLC is an enterprise within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 203(r), and an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the product of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 203(s)(1). The Company employed the Plaintiff as a caregiver in people's homes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Michaela M. Calhoun, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage St. NW, Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com mcalhoun@ohlaborlaw.com SKM RECYCLING: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Plant Fire ------------------------------------------------------- Sky News reports Melbourne man Castor Murillo says he was forced out of his home for five nights and continues to receive medical treatment after a recycling plant fire sent plumes of toxic smoke over nearby suburbs. He is among a group of residents suing the factory operators, claiming the still-smouldering blaze caused health concerns and damaged homes. The class action was filed in the Victorian Supreme Court on July 21 against SKM, which runs the Coolaroo Recycling Plant in Melbourne's north. Fire engulfed the facility on July 13, burning strongly for several days as it billowed toxic smoke into the sky and sprinkled ash across the city. Crews are still pulling apart smouldering piles of debris and don't expect to extinguish the fire completely until next week. It is the third fire at the plant in 2017, after blazes in February and June. Residents claim SKM was negligent because it knew there was a fire risk and should have done more to protect the nearby Coolaroo and Dallas neighbourhoods. 'SKM stored highly flammable waste at the plant, was aware such waste could ignite and cause a fire, and was aware there had been two fires . . . in the previous five months,' the writ said. 'SKM owed the group members a duty to take reasonable care to prevent a fire starting at the plant, and prevent the emissions from any such fire spreading to the affected area.' The group said the company should have installed an appropriate fire suppressing system, separated their waste better and done more to control fire emissions. Mr. Murillo was forced to leave his home at suburban Dallas and required chest x-rays and medication after the smoke inhalation. He and others had to fork out time and money to clean the smoke and toxins from their homes, the writ says. They are seeking damages for these expenses and the nuisance the fire caused, as well as legal costs, but there has not been a value placed on the action. As air quality levels plummeted nearby the plant, 115 residents were evacuated. More than 100 people have joined the class action. The factory was due to be inspected over its fire management practices on the day the fire ignited. SKM said it was 'extremely sorry for what our neighbours and the local community have gone through'. [GN] SOUTHERN GLAZER: Faces Class Action Over False & Misleading Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a California consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against a liquor distributor, alleging fraud. James C. Nguyen filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, July 5 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, LLC, and Southern Wine & Spirits of America Inc., alleging they issued false and misleading information to the plaintiff. According to the complaint, Nguyen, a liquor license holder for Arena Restaurant and Lounge in San Jose, was damaged monetarily from being misled into purchasing goods and services and that the defendants failed to disclose confidential information to the plaintiff about their liquor products. Nguyen seeks trial by jury, restitution and disgorgement, punitive and exemplary damages, interest, court costs and all further relief the court grants. He is represented by attorneys Scott Edward Cole, Kevin Francis Barrett, Teresa Denise Allen and Corey Benjamin Bennett of Scott Cole & Associates APC in Oakland, and by Kelly Gelini and Wesley Wakeford of Wakeford Gelini in San Francisco. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case number 5:17-cv-03805-HRL [GN] SPOTIFY: Faces New Lawsuits Following Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Lulu Chang, writing for Digital Trends, reports that it may be your favorite music service, but it's certainly not popular among songwriters or the court system. Spotify faces another couple lawsuits. It may be the most popular music streaming service in the world, but that won't be a compelling defense for Spotify now that it's being hit with yet another two lawsuits. Back in May, the wildly popular music platform settled a $200 million class-action lawsuit from songwriters for $43 million, but the company is far from out of the woods. Two new lawsuits were launched earlier in Nashville, Tennessee, and they could certainly put a wrinkle in Spotify's plans to IPO this year. The new lawsuits come a couple months after its most recent court battle, but it's clear that when it comes to copyright law, Spotify still has a lot to learn. One of the new cases being brought against Spotify comes from songwriter Bob Gaudio, who claims that famous songs like Can't Take My Eyes Off You and Rag Doll are being distributed without proper licensing. Bluewater Music Services Corporation brings the second case against Spotify -- the publishing rights company claims that "anything less than the maximum $150,000 statutory damage award for each of the Infringed Works involved herein would encourage infringement, amount to a slap on the wrist, and reward a multibillion dollar company, about to go public, that rules the streaming market through a pattern of willful infringement on a staggering scale." While Spotify has certain licensing deals and has purchased some blanket licenses, individual songs that are owned by publishers and songwriters aren't necessarily covered by these licenses. Every time one of those songs is played, the writers are meant to get a payout. But Spotify has admitted that finding each of those writers has proved a "daunting" task, and is one that the company apparently doesn't always complete. And that's getting Spotify in a lot of hot water. Bluewater estimates that around 35 billion unpaid streams were played between June 2011 and the end of 2015, which resulted in the non-payment of some $15 million in royalties. As such, the company claims, even existing settlements have not resolved "the outstanding issues with the Spotify licensing and royalty payment system." Bluewater's lawsuit further notes that after class- action lawyers are paid, "Spotify will be allowed to walk away after paying approximately four dollars ($4.00) per infringed composition. Such a settlement is essentially an empty gesture that encourages infringement and is entirely insufficient to remedy years of illegal activity." [GN] STATE FARM: Ordered to File Amended Notice of Removal in "Ayers" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned FRANK AYERS, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; RUTH MIER GRAHAM; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY; TAMMY BOOTH; and STEVEN HERSH, Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-1265-Orl-37TBS (M.D. Fla.), Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, found that the Defendant has failed to adequately establish the Plaintiff's citizenship and directed it to file an amended notice of removal that remedies the deficiency identified. In the instant action, the Plaintiff asserts: (i) six individual state-law claims against all the Defendants based on deceptive and unfair insurance practices; and (ii) a putative class action breach-of-contract claim ("Class Claim") against the Defendant. On July 11, 2017, State Farm removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). In the Notice of Removal, State Farm asserts that the Class Claim satisfies CAFA's minimal diversity requirement. In support, it alleges that minimal diversity is satisfied because: (i) it is a citizen of Illinois; and (ii) the Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida. Importantly, State Farm's allegation of the Plaintiff's citizenship is based upon information and belief. Additionally, it admits that the basis for the Plaintiff's citizenship rests only on the allegation in the Complaint that the Plaintiff is a resident of Orange County, Florida. But residence alone is insufficient to establish a party's citizenship. Rather, the citizenship of an individual is determined by domicile, which is established by residence plus an intent to remain. While courts may consider a party's residence as part of the totality of the evidence indicating domicile, State Farm has submitted no additional evidence to supplement the Residence Allegation. Because State Farm has insufficiently established Plaintiff's citizenship, Judge Dalton held that it has failed to carry its burden of invoking the Court's diversity jurisdiction under CAFA. Accordingly, on Aug. 8, 2017, he directed the Defendant to file an amended notice of removal that remedies the deficiency identified in the Order. Failure to timely file will result in this action being summarily remanded without further notice. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/ESx0ot from Leagle.com. Frank Ayers, Plaintiff, represented by Henry Arnold Seiden, Seiden Law. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamine Reid -- breid@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, David Matthew Allen -- mallen@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA & Jeffrey A. Cohen -- jmcohen@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA. Ruth Mier Graham, Defendant, represented by David Cyril Knapp, James A. Coleman, PA, James A. Coleman, James A. Coleman, PA, Kendall B. Rigdon, Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP & Kurt Edward Alexander, Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP. Government Employees Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Kendall B. Rigdon, Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP & Kurt Edward Alexander, Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP. Tammy Booth, Defendant, represented by John W. Weihmuller -- jweihmuller@butler.legal -- Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP. Steven Hersh, Defendant, represented by John W. Weihmuller, Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP. STATE FARM: Faces "Martinez" Suit in Ill. Over Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gilbert Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 2017-CH-09630 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 14, 2017), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the breach of contract by State Farm, specifically by refusing to pay General Contractor's Overhead and Profit ("GCOP") claims on property damage claims. State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company operates an insurance company in Bloomington, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas F. Burke, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS F. BURKE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1441 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (215) 915-8328 E-mail: tburke@BorumBurke.com - and - Terrence Buehler, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER 17W220 22nd Street, Suite 410 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 Telephone: (312) 372-2209 E-mail: info@touhylaw.com T&R MARKET: Faces Class Action Over Tax Refund Anticipation Loans ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that in a federal class-action lawsuit, an Albuquerque law firm accuses a loan company with offices in New Mexico and Arizona of making predatory tax-refund- anticipation loans to people living in and around the Navajo Nation. The lawsuit says the plaintiffs -- William Dejolie and Sammia Dejolie of Gallup -- were charged a 385 percent annual interest rate on a $1,250 loan they obtained in November 2014. The lawsuit, which calls the interest rate unconscionable, also accuses the defendants of violating the Truth in Lending Act, willful breach of contract and unjust enrichment, the Santa Fe New Mexican reported. The company, which has offices in Gallup, Farmington, Shiprock and Chinle, Arizona, also operates grocery store, feed store, pawn shop and tax preparation businesses in the areas it serves. The complaint says the three defendants in the case -- T&R Market Inc., Tancorde Finance Inc. and T&R Tax Service Inc. -- are all part of business venture that makes thousands of tax-refund- anticipation loans each year. In 2017, the New Mexico Legislature passed a bill that eliminated payday loans. But an amendment exempted tax-refund-anticipation loans like the one the Dejolie's obtained from T&R Market. A phone message left by the Santa Fe New Mexican at T&R Market in Gallup was not immediately returned. Other states have reported seeing a shift to tax-refund- anticipation loans after cracking down on payday loans. Nicholas Mattison, the Albuquerque attorney representing the Dejolies, said the high interest rate loans are particularly egregious because they focus on clients who are eligible for the federal earned income tax credit, typically low-to moderate-income working individuals and couples with children. "It's supposed to be a source of support for the working poor. But instead it is being taken advantage of by the lenders out there," he said. [GN] TEXOLLINI INC: "Corrales" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Erika Susana Corrales, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Texollini, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC667601 (Cal. Super., July 6, 2017), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize or permit required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, unpaid vacation wages, reimbursement of business-related expenses, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest pursuant to California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Texollini is a fabric supplier and operates a vertically integrated knitting mill and textile manufacturing plant in Long Beach, California. Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Tagore Subramaniam, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Tel: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310)531-1901 Email: mmatem@matemlawgroup.com tagore@matemlawgroup.com THALES AVIONICS: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work ---------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Steele, an individual, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Thales Avionics, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-01246 (M.D. Fla., July 6, 2017), seeks liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief under the overtime and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is engaged in the business of performing maintenance and upkeep on in-flight entertainment systems on commercial aircrafts where Plaintiff was employed as a line maintenance technician. Steele claims to have rendered uncompensated off-the-clock work. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jill S. Schwartz, Esq. David H. Spalter, Esq. John M. Hunt, Esq. JlLL S. SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, PA. 655 W. Morse Blvd, Suite 212 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 647-8911 Facsimile: (407) 628-4994 E-mail: jschwartz@jschwartzlawfirm.net dspalter@jschwartzlawfirm.net jhunt@jschwartzlawfirm.net TREASURY WINE: Ruling Explores Class Closure Appropriateness ------------------------------------------------------------ Ross McInnes and Yasmin Monfared of Clayton Utz, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the latest decision in the Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd / Treasury Wine Estates saga explores when it is appropriate for a Court to make "class closure" orders in class actions where it can facilitate the desirable end of settlement. When Parliament introduced an opt-out class action regime, it did so for the dual purpose of providing access to justice and to provide an efficient and effective procedure to deal with multiple claims. The Courts quickly recognised that a common if not inevitable feature of opt-out class actions was that the defendant will be faced with uncertainty regarding the quantum of class members' claims. Uncertainty about the quantum of the class action claims in turn generates uncertainty about settlement -- a defendant faces the challenge of weighing up the strength (or otherwise) of their position, and the likely cost of resolving the class action. A practice of "closing the class" therefore developed. Class closure orders are a vehicle through which some certainty and scope can be provided in an uncertain world. They occur when the Court establishes a process for class members to identify themselves (usually through registration), generally for the purposes of participation in settlement discussions. Class members who do not register their interests are not able to participate in the fruits of any settlement. Over the years there had been some divergence in judicial practice. In Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v Treasury Wine Estates Limited [2017] FCAFC 98 (MCI v TWE) the Full Court took the opportunity to provide some guidance on class closure issues (even though it was no longer necessary to deal with the arguments because the applicant had abandoned its contentions on the issue). MCI v TWE In mid-2014, Mr Brian Jones commenced a shareholder class action against TWE. During an opt-out hearing, TWE sought class closure orders which would close the class for all purposes. The practical effect of such an order would be that the class members who neither opted out nor registered were precluded from any settlement and, if settlement was not achieved, any subsequent favourable judgment. The primary judge did not make the order. Rather, a class closure order was made which precluded group members who neither opted out nor registered from sharing in any settlement, but expressly preserved their rights to share in any subsequent judgment. MCI lodged an appeal against the primary judge's findings in respect of the opt-out application, including that the primary judge's requirement for class members to register their claim in order to continue to participate in the proceedings, prior to settlement or judgment and before the terms and consequences of settlement were known, was an error of law and had the effect of improperly excluding them. The Full Court explains how class closure works The Full Court upheld the primary judge's class closure order. In doing so, the Full Court made a number of observations about class closure more generally. First, it must be accepted that the requirement for class members to take active steps to register in order to share in a settlement of a class action undercuts to some extent the opt-out rationale underpinning the Part IVA regime. Second, if a class closure order operates to facilitate the desirable end of settlement, it may be reasonably adapted to the purpose of seeking or obtaining justice in the proceedings and therefore appropriate under section 33ZF of the Act. In that regard, an important aspect of the utility of a class proceedings is that they may achieve finality not only for class members but also for the respondent. Third, the Court should be cautious before making a class closure order that, if settlement is not achieved, operates to lock class members out of their entitlement to make claim and share in a judgment. While the facilitation of settlement is a good reason for a class closure order, an order to shut out class members who do not respond to an arbitrary deadline is not. Fourth, the Court should usually not exercise the discretion to make a class closure order based merely on a respondent's assertion that it is unwilling to discuss settlement unless such an order is made. Finally, whether a class closure order is appropriate in a particular proceeding is a question of balance and judicial intuition. The interests of the class as a whole, the surrounding circumstances, the stage of the proceedings, the attitude of the party, the complexity of the case and likely duration of the proceedings were all identified as potentially relevant factors. For example, in MCI v TWE, the class closure order was appropriate in circumstances where the proceedings were at a stage where prospects could be reasonably assessed and the solicitors for the applicants were experienced and able to assess whether the closure was in the interests of the class members. However, in Winterford v Pfizer Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1199, class closure orders were not appropriate in circumstances were pleadings remained open, common questions were not yet settled and no settlement discussions had begun. Moving forward with more certainty Parties to class actions now have points of guidance when determining when a class closure order is appropriate, as well as a greater understanding of the Court's attitude towards the protection of class member rights to the fruits of judgment. It will not be good enough for parties to class actions to ask the Court to make class closure orders merely because the respondents state that they are unwilling to contemplate settlement unless a class closure order is made. It will be necessary to convince the Court that it is in the interests of the class as a whole, especially if the orders will facilitate the desirable end of settlement. [GN] TURNER BROADCASTING: "Henley" Race Discrimination Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned CELESLIE HENLEY and ERNEST COLBERT, JR., Plaintiffs, v. TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., TIME WARNER INC., CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., and TURNER SERVICES, INC., Defendants, No. 1:16-cv-4506-WSD (N.D. Ga.), Judge William S. Deffey, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Strike, and/or for More Definite Statement of Plaintiffs' Complaint; and denied both the Plaintiffs' Motions for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Defendants' Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss, and for Leave to Amend the Complaint to Voluntarily Withdraw its Original Complaint. On Dec. 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, asserting discrimination claims on behalf of themselves and the putative class of all African-American persons employed by Defendants in salaried positions and mid-level managerial positions (specifically, managerial positions inferior to the Director, Vice President, Senior Vice President positions) in the United States at any time from April of 1997, to the present, who are subject to the Defendants' employment and human resources policies and practices, including, but not limited to, current or former salaried employees of Turner Broadcasting Systems, including Turner's subsidiaries, Time Warner, Inc. and Turner Services, Inc., and who have been, continue to be, or may in the future be, adversely affected by Defendants' racially discriminatory employment policies and practices (the Class). Count 1 asserts that, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, the Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of intentional race discrimination against the Plaintiffs and the Class by denying them equal treatment in promotions, compensation, performance evaluations, and the terms and conditions of employment. Count 2 asserts that the Defendants intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), by (i) declining to promote Colbert to Senior Manager until August 2016, (ii) paying the Plaintiffs less than similarly situated white employees, (iii) denying the Plaintiffs equal terms and conditions of employment, and (iv) retaliating against Henley for the discrimination complaint made to White. Count 3 asserts that the Defendants' policies and practices on compensation, promotions, and performance evaluations disparately impact African-American employees, in violation of Title VII. On Feb. 7, 2017, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. On March 23, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Amend, seeking leave to amend their Complaint to "clarify" their allegations and assert "new facts." The Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend on the grounds that the Proposed Amended Complaint does not state viable claims and an amendment would be futile. On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiffs requested leave to file a surreply in opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Judge Deffey finds that the Plaintiffs' Surreply Motion does not specifically identify the Defendants' new arguments and false and misleading representations. The Defendants' reply, however, squarely responds to the arguments in the Plaintiffs' response brief, and does not advance new arguments. The Plaintiffs have not identified unusual circumstances in this case, and they fail to demonstrate that a particular argument or representation made by the Defendants in their reply brief warrants the filing of a surreply. Accordingly, he denied the Plaintiffs' Surreply Motion. As to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs fail to state individual claims under section 1981 because they have not shown they were subject to intentional race discrimination. They also fail to state a section 1981 claim on behalf of the putative Class because they are barred from representing the Class and, even if they were not, they fail to plausibly allege a pattern and practice of intentional race discrimination. Therefore, Judge Deffey granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. With respect to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend, Judge Deffey finds that the Plaintiffs' Proposed Amended Complaint retains Count 1, omits Counts 2 and 3, and offers no new substantive allegations. It includes only cosmetic amendments -- largely stylistic changes -- which do not cure the deficiencies in the Complaint. Because the Proposed Amended Complaint would require dismissal for the same reasons as the initial Complaint, he denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend as futile. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/A1fAEj from Leagle.com. Celeslie Henley, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Meachum, Daniel R. Meachum & Associates, LLC. Celeslie Henley, Plaintiff, represented by James D. Williams, Law Offices of James D. Williams, pro hac vice, Mario Bernard Williams, Williams Oinonen, LLC & James E. Voyles, The Voyles Milhollin Law Firm. Ernest Colbert, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Meachum, Daniel R. Meachum & Associates, LLC, James D. Williams, Law Offices of James D. Williams, pro hac vice, Mario Bernard Williams, Williams Oinonen, LLC & James E. Voyles, The Voyles Milhollin Law Firm. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Mariko Palesch, Littler Mendelson PC, Dionysia L. Johnson-Massie, Littler Mendelson PC, James Andrew Lamberth, Troutman Sanders, LLP & Leslie A. Dent, Littler Mendelson PC. Time Warner Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Mariko Palesch -- apalesch@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, Dionysia L. Johnson- Massie -- djmassie@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, James Andrew Lamberth -- james.lamberth@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders, LLP & Leslie A. Dent -- ldent@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC. Cable News Network, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Mariko Palesch, Littler Mendelson PC, Dionysia L. Johnson-Massie, Littler Mendelson PC, James Andrew Lamberth, Troutman Sanders, LLP & Leslie A. Dent, Littler Mendelson PC. Turner Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Mariko Palesch, Littler Mendelson PC, Dionysia L. Johnson-Massie, Littler Mendelson PC, James Andrew Lamberth, Troutman Sanders, LLP & Leslie A. Dent, Littler Mendelson PC. U-HAUL: Hit With Class Action Over Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------- Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a New York customer has filed a class action lawsuit against U-Haul, alleging breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and unfair competition. Trang Nguyen filed a complaint, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, June 30 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against U-Haul Co. of New York and Vermont, Inc., U-Haul International Inc., and Amerco, alleging they failed to deliver on their promise of a 6x12-foot cargo trailer for the plaintiff. According to the complaint, Nguyen was damaged as the result of not being compensated for her inconvenience of not receiving a promised cargo trailer, for which she had paid $37.95. The plaintiff alleges U-Haul failed to compensate her plaintiff as promised in their $50 guarantee policy for failing to deliver their promised cargo trailer to her earlier this year. Nguyen seeks trial by jury, restitution and disgorgement, interest, compensatory and other damages, actual and statutory damages, interest, court costs and all relief this court grants. She is represented by attorneys C.K. Lee and Anne Seelig of Lee Litigation Group PLLC in New York. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York case number 1:17-cv-03947-RJD-RLM [GN] ULTA SALON: Court Approves $718K in Atty Fees, Costs in "Moore" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned SARAH MOORE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. CV 12-3224 FMO (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ordered the payment of (i) the attorney's fees and costs, (ii) the Plaintiff's service payment, and (ii) the fees and expenses in connection with the administration of the Settlement Agreement. In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Court's Order Re: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; Approval of Attorney's Fees, Costs & Service Award, Judge Olguin ordered that (i) Plaintiff Moore will be paid a service payment of $5,000; and (ii) the Class counsel will be paid $697,500 in attorney's fees and $20,753.43 in costs. He also ordered that the settlement administrator, CPT, will be paid up to $112,500 for its fees and expenses in connection with the administration of the Settlement Agreement. Except as to any class members who have validly and timely requested exclusion, this action is dismissed with prejudice, with all parties to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth and in the prior orders of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 judgment is available at https://is.gd/0XMyfh from Leagle.com. Sarah Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy K. Hobbs, II, Hobbs Law Group. Sarah Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Alejandro D. Blanco, The Blanco Law Firm PC, Dennis Patrick Wilson -- WILSONTRIALGROUP@ATT.NET -- Law Offices of Dennis P Wilson & Kristin Hobbs -- khobbs@shernoff.com -- Shernoff Bidard Echeverria LLP. Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc, Defendant, represented by Alexis A. Sohrakoff -- asohrakoff@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, John C. Kloosterman -- jkloosterman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Kai-Ching Cha -- kcha@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC. USAA CASUALTY: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in "Archuleta" OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JERRY ARCHULETA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-cv-00191-RBJ (D. Colo.), Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff Archuleta, a Colorado resident, was injured in a car accident with an underinsured motorist. He submitted insurance claims to United Services Automobile Association ("USAA") under his policy for medical payments ("MedPay") and uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM/UIM") coverage. USAA paid Mr. Archuleta $5,000 in MedPay benefits and later paid an additional $17,000 in UM/UIM benefits pursuant to a settlement agreement. According to Mr. Archuleta, USAA disclosed during the negotiations that it believed he was entitled to $22,000 in UM/UIM coverage, but it subtracted the $5,000 paid for MedPay benefits under a non-duplication provision of the insurance policy. With the advice of counsel, Mr. Archuleta accepted this setoff and signed a release discharging USAA's duty to pay under the policy. More than a year later, however, the Colorado Supreme Court held in Calderon v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. that such setoff policies violate state law. Mr. Archuleta then filed this class action against the Defendants, alleging that they have systematically reduced UM/UIM payments by the amount of MedPay payments in violation of state law since 2008 -- eight years before Calderon clarified the law. The Defendants have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that Mr. Archuleta's signed release is fatal to his claims. Judge Brooke explains that Mr. Archuleta cannot get out of his settlement agreement because no public policy outweighs the interest in enforcing the parties' settlement agreement. Mr. Archuleta argues that Calderon manifests Colorado's policy of forbidding setoffs of UM/UIM benefits by MedPay payments. However, the present settlement agreement does not concern the amount of UM/UIM coverage available on Mr. Archuleta's claim, but rather the amount of money he was willing to accept to release whatever claim he had. This situation is unlike the other Colorado Supreme Court cases Mr. Archuleta cites. The line of cases leading up to Calderon involved the requirements of UM/UIM coverage, not settlements for less (or more) than the amount of coverage. Because Mr. Archuleta's personal allegations concern only USAA, he does not have standing to bring a claim individually or on behalf of a class against the Defendants. Additionally, since Mr. Archuleta's substantive claim fails, his request for declaratory relief is dismissed as well. For these reasons, Judge Brooke granted the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and dismissed with prejudice Mr. Archuleta's complaint. As the prevailing party, he awarded the Defendants their reasonable costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/jfxgVy from Leagle.com. Jerry Archuleta, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Aaron Levin, Levin Sitcoff PC. Jerry Archuleta, Plaintiff, represented by Franklin David Azar, Franklin D. Azar & Associates, PC, Jonathan Steven Parrott, Franklin D. Azar & Associates, PC, Keith Richard Scranton, Franklin D. Azar & Associates, PC, Nelson Andrew Waneka, Levin Sitcoff PC, Patricia A. Meester, Franklin D. Azar & Associates, PC, Susan S. Minamizono, Levin Sitcoff PC & Tonya L. Melnichenko, Franklin D. Azar & Associates, PC. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Marilyn S. Chappell, Sweetbaum Sands Anderson, P.C., Michael Douglas Mulvaney -- mmulvaney@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, Thomas Julian Butler -- tbutler@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC & Jon F. Sands, Sweetbaum Sands Anderson, P.C.. United Services Automobile Association, Defendant, represented by Marilyn S. Chappell, Sweetbaum Sands Anderson, P.C., Michael Douglas Mulvaney, Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, Thomas Julian Butler, Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC & Jon F. Sands, Sweetbaum Sands Anderson, P.C.. USAA CASUALTY: District Ct. Rulings vs. Attys in "Adams" Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Mark I. Adams; Katherine S. Adams, Plaintiffs, v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, doing business as USAA; USAA General Indemnity Co., doing business as USAA; United Services Automobile Association, doing business as USAA, Defendants, v. Wystan Michael Ackerman, Respondent, Kenneth (Casey) Castleberry, Appellant, Stephen O. Clancy; Stephen C. Engstrom; Stephen Edward Goldman, Respondents, John C. Goodson; D. Matt Keil; Matthew L. Mustokoff; Timothy J. Myers; Richard E. Norman, Appellants, Lyn Peeples Pruitt Respondent, William B. Putman; Jason Earnest Roselius; W. H. Taylor; A. F. (Tom) Thompson, III; Stevan Earl Vowell; R. Martin Weber, Jr. Appellants. Competitive Enterprise Institute Center for Class Action Fairness, Amicus Curiae-Appellee, Mark I. Adams; Katherine S. Adams, Plaintiffs, v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, doing business as USAA; USAA General Indemnity Co., doing business as USAA; United Services Automobile Association, doing business as USAA, Defendants, v. Wystan Michael Ackerman, Appellant, Kenneth (Casey) Castleberry; Stephen O. Clancy; Stephen C. Engstrom, Respondents, Stephen Edward Goldman, Appellant, John C. Goodson; D. Matt Keil; Matthew L. Mustokoff; Timothy J. Myers; Richard E. Norman, Respondents, Lyn Peeples Pruitt, Appellant, William B. Putman; Jason Earnest Roselius; W. H. Taylor; A. F. (Tom) Thompson, III; Stevan Earl Vowell; R. Martin Weber, Jr. Respondents, Competitive Enterprise Institute Center for Class Action Fairness, Amicus Curiae-Appellee, Nos. 16-3382 and 16-3482 (8th Cir.), Judge Lavenski R. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's finding that the Plaintiffs' counsel and the Defendants' counsel violated Rule 11 and abused the judicial process by stipulating to the dismissal of the federal action for the purpose of seeking a more favorable forum and avoiding an adverse decision; and remanded for further proceedings. The Plaintiffs filed this case as a putative class action in the Circuit Court of Polk County, Arkansas, on Dec. 5, 2013. On Jan. 15, 2014, the Defendants removed the matter to the federal district court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. On April 29, 2014, the Defendants moved for partial judgment on the pleadings. On May 5, 2014, the district court stayed the action for mediation on the parties' joint motion. On March 16, 2015, the parties notified the district court that they had reached an agreement on most material terms. They reached a settlement agreement in principle on March 31, 2015, which terms included dismissal of this action and refiling in Polk County, Arkansas. On April 15, 2015, the Defendants withdrew their motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, and the parties jointly filed a Rule 26(f) report setting forth several dates for continued litigation of this action in the district court. On May 5, 2015, the district court entered a final scheduling order based on the Rule 26(f) report. On May 13, 2015, the district court held a hearing in a separate case also brought by Mark and Kathy Adams (the same plaintiffs in this matter) on preliminary approval of a class-action settlement of claims almost identical to those raised in the instant matter and brought by many of the same Plaintiffs' counsel. On June 16, 2015, the parties in the present case executed a settlement agreement identifying the Circuit Court of Polk County as the reviewing court. On June 19, 2015, the parties in the present case jointly dismissed this action by stipulation. The Clerk's order of dismissal was entered on June 22, 2015. On June 23, 2015, the parties refiled the action in the Circuit Court of Polk County. The parties also filed a joint motion to certify a class action and to approve the stipulated class settlement that the parties had negotiated and executed while appearing in the federal action. The next day, the district court approved the Adams I amended stipulation. On Aug. 26, 2015, the state court certified a settlement class, and it also preliminarily approved the settlement agreement. On Dec. 14, 2015, the district court first learned that the parties had refiled the action in the Circuit Court of Polk County and that the state court's final approval of the settlement was imminent. On Dec. 21, 2015, the state court entered its final order approving settlement, and it awarded attorney's fees. On that same day, the district court entered its show-cause order. On Feb. 11, 2016, the district court notified all counsel of record that, in addition to the Rule 11 sanctions, it was also considering imposing sanctions under its inherent authority. On April 14, 2016, the district court issued an order finding that the Plaintiffs' counsel and the Defendants' counsel violated Rule 11 when they stipulated to dismissal of the federal action for the improper purpose of seeking a more favorable forum and avoiding an adverse decision. On June 24, 2016, the court heard argument "on the issue of whether and what sanctions should be issued." The court absolved the Defendants' counsel of any bad faith based on "mitigating factors." In this consolidated appeal, the appellants, attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in a putative class action, appeal from the district court's orders (i) finding that the appellants violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and abused the judicial process when they stipulated to the dismissal of the federal action; and (ii) reprimanding some of the Plaintiffs' attorneys as a sanction for the violation. Specifically, the district court found that the appellants violated Rule 11 when they stipulated to the dismissal of the federal action for the allegedly improper purpose of seeking a more favorable forum and avoiding an adverse decision. Judge Smith held that the counsel did not violate Rule 41(a)(1) in stipulating to the dismissal of the action and had at least a colorable legal argument that the district court's approval was not needed under Rule 23(e) to voluntarily dismiss the claims of the putative class. Therefore, he held that the district court abused its discretion in determining that counsel violated Rule 11 and abused the judicial process. As a result, it also abused its discretion in imposing sanctions upon the Plaintiffs' counsel for the purported violation. Accordingly, Judge Smith reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/4LbNoS from Leagle.com. John Russell Elrod -- jelrod@cwlaw.com -- for Appellant. Gregory P.N. Joseph, for Appellant. David R. Matthews, for Defendant-Not Party. Lyn Peoples Pruitt -- lpruitt@mwlaw.com -- for Defendant-Not Party. Vicki D. Bronson -- vbronson@cwlaw.com -- for Appellant. Stephen Edward Goldman -- sgoldman@rc.com -- for Defendant-Not Party. Wystan M. Ackerman -- wackerman@rc.com -- for Defendant-Not Party. Theodore H. Frank, for Amicus Curiae. Courtney Solomon -- csolomon@jha.com -- for Appellant. Mara Leventhal -- mleventhal@jha.com -- for Appellant. Stephen O. Clancy -- sclancy@rc.com -- for Defendant-Not Party. Sandra Myndelle Lipsman, for Appellant. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Attorneys Get $125MM in Second Emission Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge on July 21 awarded $125 million in fees and costs to lawyers who secured a second settlement in Volkswagen's diesel emissions cheating scandal. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer approved the $1.2 billion settlement in May, one of two deals worth nearly $16 billion, to settle claims in Volkswagen's installation of emissions test cheating software in some 580,000 diesel-powered vehicles sold in the United States. "The settlement not only provides class members with significant value, but class counsel obtained the settlement swiftly," Judge Breyer wrote in his 7-page ruling. He noted that the second deal was approved less than 18 months after lead class counsel Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein was appointed by the court. It was the second big payday for attorneys in the multidistrict consumer class action. Judge Breyer in March awarded counsel $175 million for securing a $14.7 billion deal for 500,000 2.0-liter engine vehicles. In that settlement, Volkswagen agreed to spend $10 billion on vehicle buybacks and emissions-reducing repairs, and $4.7 billion to regulators for air quality improvement programs. The 3.0-liter engine deal approved in May comes with a value of at least $902 million for consumers, along with payouts to U.S. and California for air pollution mitigation. Under the settlement, Volkswagen could have to pay an extra $4 billion if it can't come up with regulator-approved, emissions-reducing repairs for 58,000 newer-model cars by deadlines in October, November and December this year. The requested $121 million in attorneys' fees accounts for 13.4 percent of the estimated $902 million value of the settlement, "well below the Ninth Circuit's 25 percent benchmark for common fund cases," Judge Breyer wrote in the July 21 ruling. He found the attorneys' request for an additional $4 million in expenses was reasonable and granted it. Volkswagen has paid more than $20 billion in U.S. civil settlements and criminal fines so far for installing of emissions- cheating software in some 11 million vehicles worldwide, and U.S. prosecutors have criminally charged six of its executives with conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Judge Breyer approved a third partial consent decree in which Volkswagen agreed to pay a $93.8 million fine to California's air quality regulator, the California Air Resources Board. That money will go to the state's Air Pollution Control Fund, according to the consent decree. On top of that, Volkswagen will pay California another $60 million, in $10 million installments over six years, to reimburse it for the costs of securing three consent decrees. The third consent decree also requires Volkswagen make changes to its corporate governance structure, maintain an approved whistleblower system, and hire third-party testers and auditors to evaluate its emissions compliance. Volkswagen spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office did not immediately return emails seeking comment. The plaintiffs' steering committee said in a statement on July 21 that it appreciated the court's consideration of its fee request and was "gratified" to be implementing the two class-action settlements. More than 10,000 of 30,000 filed claims have been paid for the 3.0-liter settlement in less than two months, and more than $540 million in payment offers have been made, according to class attorneys. "We negotiated these agreements to hold Volkswagen accountable for its breach of consumer trust, and we hope that all class members choose to take advantage of the benefits detailed in these settlements," the class attorneys said in a statement. "These legal fees are in addition to the compensation Volkswagen has already agreed to pay under the terms of the settlement, and will not be deducted from any class member's recovery amount." [GN] WAL-MART STORES: Mo. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Corozzo" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mark D. Feiffer of the Court of Appeals of Missouri for the Western District affirmed the Circuit Court's order dismissing with prejudice the case captioned JOSHUA COROZZO and ARTHOR RUFF, Appellants, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Respondent, No. WD80121 (Mo. App.). On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a class action against Wal- Mart, alleging willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). Specifically, they alleged that Wal-Mart's Disclosure Form contained extraneous information, inaccurate and misleading statements, and did not provide the putative class members with a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing in a document that consisted solely of the disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes. As relief, they sought statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney's fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. The circuit court docket sheet shows "Judge Assigned" the same day the case was filed. It also shows an "Order" entered by Judge Jon Beetem on Sept. 1, 2015, which order included a statement that Division 1 recused on its own motion and transferred the case file to the Presiding Judge for re-assignment. On Oct. 2, 2015, the docket sheet shows the Presiding Judge entered an "Order for Change of Judge" assigning the case to Division 2. Wal-Mart filed its answer on Oct. 19, 2015, alleging as one of its affirmative defenses that the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the claims set forth in their Complaint because they involve no threatened or actual injury to them. The Plaintiffs lack standing to assert the claims in their Complaint because, among other reasons, they have not suffered an injury-in-fact. A docket sheet entry on Oct. 20, 2015 shows "Judge Assigned, Motion to Stay" and indicates that Wal-Mart's motion to stay discovery and suggestions in support were sent to the assigned judge for review. On Nov. 10, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for change of judge. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion on Nov. 18, 2015. After hearing the parties' arguments, the trial court denied the motion for change of judge and permitted the parties to argue Wal-Mart's motion to stay discovery, which the trial court sustained in part. Thereafter, Wal-Mart moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' petition for lack of standing on the grounds that they asserted only a bare procedural violation; they did not assert any concrete harm or injury; and therefore they failed to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of standing. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court entered its judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. Corozzo and Ruff timely appealed. Judge Feiffer held that the record clearly reflects that on Oct. 2, 2015, Presiding Judge Joyce issued a written order assigning the case to Division 2, which order was entered in the docket on that date. This constituted the relevant designation of the trial judge for the purposes of Rule 51.05(b). Pursuant to Rule 51.05, the Plaintiffs' motion for change of judge was due within 30 of that designation. Because they did not file their motion until Nov. 10, 2015, it was untimely, and they were not entitled to relief. Pursuant to the precedent of Spokeo v. Robins and the reasoned analysis by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Braitberg v. Charter Communications, Inc., Judge Pfeiffer concluded that the Plaintiffs have not pleaded an actual injury as contemplated by Missouri's pleading requirements related to the concepts of justiciability and standing. All they allege is that the format of Wal-Mart's Disclosure Form did not comply with the FCRA's disclosure requirement because Wal-Mart's Disclosure Form included extraneous information. Like the plaintiff in Spokeo, the Plaintiffs simply cannot satisfy Missouri's standing requirements by alleging a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm. For these reasons, Judge Feiffer affirmed the trial court's judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 opinion is available at https://is.gd/hdw0a0 from Leagle.com. Jonathan Sternberg and Ashlyn Buck Lewis, Kansas City, MO, and C. Jason Brown -- jcbrown@brownlawoffices.com -- and Jayson A. Watkins, Gower, MO, Attorneys for Appellants. Matthew D. Turner -- mturner@armstrongteasdale.com -- J. Kent Lowry -- klowry@armstrongteasdale.com -- and Alex C. Barrett -- abarrett@armstrongteasdale.com -- Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent. WELLS FARGO: Can Compel Arbitration in "Jeffries" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Judge L. Scott Cooler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, granted the Defendants' motions to compel arbitration in the case captioned DOUGLAS JEFFRIES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al., Defendants, No. 2:16-cv-01987-LSC (N.D. Ala.). On Feb. 5, 2014, the Plaintiffs opened a joint checking account and a joint savings account at their local Wells Fargo branch in Gulf Shores, Alabama. In so doing, they executed a Consumer Account Application. After opening their accounts, the Plaintiffs received three Wells Fargo credit cards that, according to them, they neither requested nor authorized. They believe that they received the cards because Wells Fargo's employees used their personal information to open the credit card accounts without their knowledge or consent. The Plaintiffs filed this action in Alabama state court on Nov. 4, 2014, alleging that Wells Fargo's employees used their personal information to open additional, unauthorized accounts and purporting to represent all Alabama consumers whose personal information was also used to create such accounts. The Defendants removed the case to this Court on Dec. 13, 2016, and filed a motion to compel arbitration shortly after. This action is one of several suits alleging similar claims against Wells Fargo that have been filed in other courts across the United States, and the Plaintiffs in one such case moved to have all cases consolidated before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The Panel denied the motion because the parties had reached a nationwide class settlement in principle in Jabbari, et al. v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al., currently pending in the Northern District of California. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the district court on July 8, 2017, and a class action fairness hearing is set for Jan. 4, 2018. The Jabbari settlement would encompass Plaintiffs' claims in the action before this Court. Judge Cooler held that the Plaintiffs did agree to arbitrate any disputes with Wells Fargo pursuant to the "dispute resolution program" described in "the applicable account agreement." It is undisputed that when they opened their accounts with Wells Fargo in February 2014, they signed the Consumer Account Application document. Directly above the signature line, this document states that account holder also agrees to the terms of the dispute resolution program described in the foregoing agreements. Under the dispute resolution program, their disputes will be decided before one or more neutral persons in an arbitration proceeding and not by a jury trial or a trial before a judge. Therefore, Judge Cooler said that at the time the Plaintiffs sought to establish a banking relationship with Wells Fargo, they received notice that Wells Fargo followed a "dispute resolution program" that would require disputes to be resolved through arbitration, rather than litigation. Judge Cooler explained further that even assuming the Consumer Account Application is not a contract but merely an offer to enter into a contract, the Application clearly informed the Plaintiffs that disputes with Wells Fargo would be resolved through arbitration. By establishing a banking relationship with Wells Fargo and thereafter using the accounts they opened for several months, they expressed their assent to the "dispute resolution program." This is true even though the Plaintiffs argue that they never received a copy of the Consumer Account Agreement containing the full terms of the program. For the reasons, Judge Cooler granted the Defendants' motions to compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 memorandum of opinion is available at https://is.gd/C4Ci3b from Leagle.com. Douglas Jeffries, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher B. Hood -- chood@hgdlawfirm.com -- HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC. Douglas Jeffries, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Randall Keenen -- mark@hgdlawfirm.com -- HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC, Taylor C. Bartlett -- taylor@hgdlawfirm.com -- HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS & W. Lewis Garrison, Jr. -- wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com -- HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC. Joann Jeffries, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher B. Hood, HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC, Mark Randall Keenen, HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC, Taylor C. Bartlett, HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS & W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC. Wells Fargo & Company, Defendant, represented by Erin J. Cox -- Erin.Cox@mto.com -- MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP & William O.L. Hutchinson -- whutchinson@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIRE WOODS LLP. Wells Fargo Bank Nat'l Assn, Defendant, represented by Erin J. Cox, MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP & William O.L. Hutchinson, MCGUIRE WOODS LLP. WEST CHESTER: Court Dismisses "McCann" Suit with Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Timothy S. Black of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned HEATHER McCann, Plaintiff, v. WEST CHESTER HOSPITAL, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-440 (S.D. Ohio). This case is one of hundreds of cases in both Ohio state courts and federal courts stemming from the alleged conduct of an orthopedic surgeon named Abubakar Atiq Durrani who formerly lived and worked in the Cincinnati area. In 2013, allegations surfaced that Dr. Durrani had for years subjected his patients to unnecessary surgeries without informed consent as part of a financial scheme. Dr. Durrani was criminally indicted in late 2013, but fled to his native Pakistan before trial. There is no indication he will return. In his absence, hundreds of allegedly wronged patients have filed civil suits against numerous related parties, from Dr. Durrani himself, to the facilities where surgeries allegedly took place, to the manufacturers of the medial products that were allegedly inserted into patients without their informed consent. The majority of the plaintiffs in these various lawsuits are represented by a single law firm, the Deters Law Office. In the case currently before the Court, Plaintiff McCann has filed a proposed class action suit against Defendants West Chester Hospital and UC Health. The amended complaint advances claims of fraud and negligent credentialing, supervision, and retention. The proposed class advanced by the amended complaint is all persons who received Puree Osteoprogenitor Cell Allograft from the Defendants during either cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spine surgeries: (i) performed at either West Chester Hospital or hospitals and surgical centers owned or operated by UC Health, (ii) from Oct. 10, 2011, to the date of filing of this action. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 17, 2017. Judge Black finds that the fundamental problem with this class as defined by the Plaintiff is that she is specifically included in a class in which she would not otherwise belong for no logical reason other than as a brazen attempt to avoid dismissal for lack of a proper representative plaintiff. McCann is currently represented by the Deters Law Office in an Ohio state court action raising similar claims against the Defendants in the present action (among others). Judge Black cannot allow the Deters Law Office to use Ms. McCann as a vehicle to keep its proposed class action afloat by proposing a class that is not based solely on objective, generalized criteria. Without Ms. McCann, the proposed class from the complaint has no class representative. With no named party pursuing the claims of the complaint, this case must be dismissed. Judge Black held that ultimately, there appears to be little need for this class action, which seems to him to merely be an attempt by the Deters Law Office to "corner the market" on any potential plaintiffs they may have missed who are not among the hundreds of plaintiffs currently pursuing their claims in Ohio state court. This is an inappropriate use of the class action mechanism, and if allowed would create duplicitous litigation that would threaten to waste judicial resources and prolong the ultimate resolution of the many serious claims arising from the alleged acts of Dr. Durrani. As it stands, allowing this complaint to proceed would serve no one but the Plaintiff's counsel. Accordingly, Judge Black granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's amended complaint. He directed the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this civil action will be closed. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/L84b19 from Leagle.com. Heather McCann, Plaintiff, represented by Glenn D. Feagan, Rockefeller Building. Heather McCann, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew J. Hammer, The Deters Law Firm P.S.C., Robert Albert Winter, Jr., & James P. Triona, The Deters Firm. West Chester Hospital, LLC, Defendant, represented by John B. Nalbandian -- nalbandian@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister, Philip D. Williamson, Taft, Stettinius, & Hollister LLP, pro hac vice & Russell S. Sayre -- sayre@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister. UC Health, Defendant, represented by John B. Nalbandian, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, Philip D. Williamson, Taft, Stettinius, & Hollister LLP, pro hac vice & Russell S. Sayre, Taft Stettinius & Hollister. WEST CHESTER: Court Dismisses "Middendorf" Suit with Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Timothy S. Black of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, dismissed with prejudice the case captioned LYNDSEY MIDDENDORF, Plaintiff, v. WEST CHESTER HOSPITAL, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-439 (S.D. Ohio). This case is one of hundreds of cases in both Ohio state courts and federal courts stemming from the alleged conduct of an orthopedic surgeon named Abubakar Atiq Durrani who formerly lived and worked in the Cincinnati area. In 2013, allegations surfaced that Dr. Durrani had for years subjected his patients to unnecessary surgeries without informed consent as part of a financial scheme. Dr. Durrani was criminally indicted in late 2013, but fled to his native Pakistan before trial. There is no indication he will return. In his absence, hundreds of allegedly wronged patients have filed civil suits against numerous related parties, from Dr. Durrani himself, to the facilities where surgeries allegedly took place, to the manufacturers of the medial products that were allegedly inserted into patients without their informed consent. The majority of the plaintiffs in these various lawsuits are represented by a single law firm, the Deters Law Office. In the case currently before the Court, Plaintiff Middendorf has filed a proposed class action suit against Defendants West Chester Hospital and UC Health. The complaint advances claims of fraud and violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Protection Act. (Doc. 3, at 41-46).1 The proposed class advanced by the complaint is any BMP-2 patient at West Chester Dr. Durrani implanted BMP-2 who is not already a Deters Law Office or other law office client who has brought a claim for BMP-2. Ms. Middendorf is represented by the Deters Law Office in both this case and a separate case filed in Ohio state court raising similar claims against, among others, the defendants in this case. The Defendants filed a timely motion to dismiss, which was placed on hold while the Court adjudicated a motion to remand filed by the Plaintiffs. The Court has denied the motion to remand. The Defendants argue in their motion to dismiss that class certification should be denied and the complaint should be dismissed because Lyndsey Middendorf is not a proper class representative for the class advanced in the complaint. The Defendants are correct, Judge Black agrees. Ms. Middendorf is clearly not a member of the class she seeks to represent. While the members of the putative class include people who are not already a Deters Law Office or other law office client who has brought a claim for BMP-2, Ms. Middendorf is currently being represented by the Deters Law Office in a case in state court advancing similar claims to those advanced in this complaint. She therefore cannot be a member of the proposed class in this case. That is the end of the Court's necessary inquiry into the merits of this class action. Without Ms. Middendorf, the proposed class from the complaint has no class representative. With no named party pursuing the claims of the complaint, this case must be dismissed. Judge Black held that ultimately, there appears to be little need for this class action, which seems to him to merely be an attempt by the Deters Law Office to "corner the market" on any potential plaintiffs they may have missed who are not among the hundreds of plaintiffs currently pursuing their claims in Ohio state court. This is an inappropriate use of the class action mechanism, and if allowed would create duplicitous litigation that would threaten to waste judicial resources and prolong the ultimate resolution of the many serious claims arising from the alleged acts of Dr. Durrani. As it stands, allowing this complaint to proceed would serve no one but the Plaintiff's counsel. Accordingly, Judge Black granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss count II and count IV of the complaint without prejudice and granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss. This case is dismissed with prejudice. He directed the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this civil action will be closed. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/gBXkgM from Leagle.com. Lyndsey Middendorf, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew J. Hammer, The Deters Law Firm P.S.C.. Lyndsey Middendorf, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Albert Winter, Jr. & James P. Triona, The Deters Firm. West Chester Hospital, LLC, Defendant, represented by John B. Nalbandian -- nalbandian@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister, Philip D. Williamson, Taft, Stettinius, & Hollister LLP, pro hac vice & Russell S. Sayre -- sayre@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister. UC Health, Defendant, represented by John B. Nalbandian, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, Philip D. Williamson, Taft, Stettinius, & Hollister LLP, pro hac vice & Russell S. Sayre, Taft Stettinius & Hollister. XBIOTECH INC: "Rezko" Sues Over IPO Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------- Yogtna Rezko, Aaron Le and Andrew Bank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Xbiotech Inc., John Simard, Queena Han, Fabrizio Bonanni, W. Thorpe McKenzie, Daniel Vasella, and WR Hambrecht & Co., LLC,, Case No. D-1-GN-17- 003063 (S.D. Tex., July 6, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. XBiotech is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery and development of human antibodies intended for the treatment of a variety of diseases. Its lead product candidate is "Xilonix," intended to treat patients with advanced colorectal cancer, especially those who have reduced tolerance for toxic therapy. The company's Initial Public Offering (IPO) documents failed to disclose that it had already experienced substantial delays in achieving its patient enrollment targets in the early stages of the Phase III Trial of Xilonix beginning in July 2014, says the complaint. Plaintiffs acquired XBiotech shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement for the IPO and lost substantially. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Yusuf A. Bajwa, Esq. Erin Hudson SANDERS BAJWA LLP 919 Congress Avenue, Suite 750 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 535-5220 Facsimile: (512) 270-5111 Email: ybajwa@sandersbajwa.com ehudson@sandersbajwa.com - and - Keith R. Lorenze, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A, 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Tel: (215) 600-2817 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: kiorenze@rosenlegal.com - and - Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com - and - Michael Goldberg, Esq. GOLDBERG LAW PC 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Phone: 1-800-977-7401 Fax: 1-800-536-0065 YORK, ME: Court Denies Dismissal of "LeGrand" Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned RENEE LEGRAND et al., v. YORK COUNTY JUDGE OF PROBATE, No. Yor-16-194 (Me.), Judge Jeffrey Hjelm of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss and affirmed York County Superior Court's judgment declining to grant declaratory and injunctive relief. In December 2014, Plaintiff LeGrand filed for joint or sole guardianship of her granddaughter in the York County Probate Court, alleging that her daughter was unfit to act as a parent to the granddaughter. In March 2015, Judge Robert M.A. Nadeau issued an order, effective until Aug. 31, 2015, granting LeGrand temporary guardianship of the child. A hearing on LeGrand's petition for permanent guardianship was scheduled for July and then for August 2015, but the hearing was not held due to scheduling conflicts attributable both to the court and to the attorneys. On Dec. 2, 2015, the Named Plaintiff filed a complaint against Judge Nadeau in the Superior Court, along with motions for class certification, for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and for an expedited hearing. She filed the action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, whom she described as individuals adversely affected by scheduling practices in the York County Probate Court. Judge Nadeau did not file an opposition to LeGrand's motion for class certification, and in an order issued in late December 2015, the court granted the motion ordering that the class would comprise all litigants who presently are or may in the future be harmed by alleged delays in the York County Probate Court as a result of the scheduling decisions alleged in the Plaintiff's amended complaint. Judge Nadeau's response to the complaint included a motion to dismiss based on judicial immunity, which the court denied. Additionally, in February 2016, Judge Nadeau moved to dismiss the class members' claims against him and to decertify the class, on the ground that the claims had become moot because the underlying Probate Court actions involving LeGrand and other class members had been resolved. While those motions remained pending, in February 2016, the court held a three-day consolidated hearing on the complaint and the motion for preliminary injunctive relief. In the resulting judgment issued on March 29, 2016, the court found in favor of Judge Nadeau concluding that the class members had not been denied access to the Probate Court to an extent that affected their constitutional rights to open courts and procedural due process. As for the substantive due process claim, the court did not reach the question of whether Judge Nadeau's actions violated that right. The judgment recognized but did not explicitly rule on Judge Nadeau's motions to dismiss the complaint and to decertify the class. In response to a post-judgment motion filed by Judge Nadeau, however, the court issued an order clarifying that it had denied those motions and intended the March 29 order to serve as a final judgment. LeGrand timely appealed. While the appeal was pending, Judge Nadeau filed with the Court a motion to dismiss LeGrand's appeal, contending in part that the case became moot when he lost the November 2016 election for the probate judgeship. Judge Hjelm held that the scope of the class as defined by the court essentially ensures that there will always be class members. Thus, even as older cases are resolved, at least some newly filed cases will be affected by the schedule implemented by Judge Nadeau, causing injury to those litigants and thereby qualifying them for class membership. Because there are class members with pending cases for whom there remain sufficient practical effects flowing from the resolution of the litigation to justify the application of limited judicial resources, the claims asserted here are not moot. However, he said that the court did not abuse its discretion by ultimately determining that, because the most significant problems created by the schedule changes had dissipated and the remaining effects of those changes were limited, declaratory and injunctive relief would not serve a useful purpose in this case. Accordingly, the court did not err in declining to reach the underlying question of whether LeGrand had established violations of substantive due process. Therefore, Judge Hjelm denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss and affirmed the judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's July 25, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/1YvVpC from Leagle.com. Robert E. Mittel, Esq. -- rmittel@mittelasen.com -- (orally), MittelAsen, LLC, Portland, and Temma Donahue, Esq. -- mma@rdcplawyers.com -- Rioux, Donahue, Chmelecki & Peltier LLC, Portland, for appellants Renee LeGrand and other class members. Peter J. Brann, Esq. -- pbrann@brannlaw.com -- (orally), and Michael E. Carey, Esq. -- MCarey@brannlaw.com -- Brann & Isaacson, Lewiston, for appellee York County Judge of Probate. ZAYO GROUP: Zhirovetskiy Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometrics Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- Denis Zhirovetskiy, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Zayo Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2017CH09323 (Ill. Cir., July 6, 2017), seeks injunctive and equitable relief, statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and other litigation expenses, prejudgment and post- judgment interest and such other relief for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Defendant, a telecommunications service provider and an operator of data storage facilities in Illinois, is alleged of collecting, storing and using Plaintiff's and other similarly situated consumers' biometric identifiers and biometric information without informed written consent. Zhirovetskiy, at one time, requested access to one of Defendant's many data centers located in Illinois. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Myles McGuire, Esq. Evan M. Meyers, Esq. David L. Gerbie, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 893-7002 Fax: (312) 275-7895 Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com emeyers@mcgpc.com dgerbie@mcgpc.com * CFPB's Arbitration Rule Boon for Class Action Lawyers ------------------------------------------------------- Alan Kaplinsky and Mark Levin, writing for USA Today, report that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's arbitration rule is a bust for consumers but a boon for class action lawyers. The supposed basis for the rule is the bureau's 2015 study of consumer arbitration. But the study actually showed that arbitration is faster, less expensive and far more effective for consumers to resolve disputes than class action litigation. Here are the facts: The average arbitration takes less than seven months, while class actions go on for years. In most arbitrations, consumer costs are capped at $200, but it costs $400 just to initiate a federal court lawsuit. According to the study, consumers who prevailed in arbitration got an average award of about $5,400, but the average class action settlement payment was a paltry $32. Meanwhile, plaintiffs' class action lawyers pocketed a staggering total of $424,495,451. Let consumers sue banks The study also showed that just 12.3% of class action cases resulted in classwide settlements and benefits to class members. And only 4% of consumers who were entitled to a settlement payment actually filed the necessary claim forms. Probably because the payoff was so small. The arbitration rule will exact a huge financial toll on the 53,000 companies that currently use arbitration agreements. We calculate that it will cost those companies between $2.6 billion and $5.2 billion over five years to deal with 6,042 additional federal and state court class actions that will be filed once class action waivers are eliminated. Those numbers will be repeated every five years. At least some, if not most, of the increased defense costs will likely be passed on to consumers through higher costs or reduced services. Further, the public will have to bear the massive extra expense that our underfunded and overburdened courts will incur in handling the deluge of class actions. More class action lawsuits aren't such a good deal -- unless you are a class action lawyer. Alan S. Kaplinsky and Mark J. Levin are partners at the law firm Ballard Spahr LLP in Philadelphia. Mr. Kaplinsky leads the firm's consumer financial services group. [GN] * Consumers Receive $366MM More Via Litigation Than Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------------- The Times-Tribune reports that mandatory arbitration of customer complaints against companies is the most anti-consumer development of this century. Buried deep in the finest print of contracts for many credit cards, insurance and other services are clauses binding aggrieved consumers to arbitration, rather than litigation, when they believe that the companies have done them wrong. Those systems most often are constructed in the companies' favor, saving them not only the costs of litigation, but reducing the amounts of penalties and diminishing deterrence of demonstrably bad behavior. A few weeks ago, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a rule allowing class action lawsuits by consumers to replace mandatory arbitration. A group of Senate Republicans responded a with a bill that would overturn that rule and leave the deck stacked in favor of credit card companies and banks like Wells Fargo, which the CFPB recently caught ripping off millions of its customers. The senators characterized the CFPB rule as a vehicle to enrich lawyers. Yet, according to the pro-consumer Center for Responsible Lending, consumers receive about $366 million more a year through settled litigation than arbitration, even with tight restrictions on class action suits. The real value of allowing the class actions is deterrence. The objective is to make arbitration and litigation rare through the honest conduct of financial services companies. Forced arbitration allows them to act with impunity; class actions raise the prospect of real penalties. Consumers outnumber bankers among every politician's constituency. Members of Congress should serve the consumers' interests. [GN] * FTC Issues 2nd Federal Register Notice on CA Programs Study ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Iandolo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the Federal Trade Commission announced July 12 that it is issuing a second Federal Register notice to continue its study of the effectiveness of class action settlement notice programs. The FTC first announced the study in 2015 as part of its Class Action Fairness Project. The commission sought to examine consumer perceptions and the effectiveness of these notices. In November 2016, the FTC issued orders to eight claims administrators, mandating that the administrators provide information on how they inform consumers of settlement notices. The commission asked the administrators to note the response rate for various methods of notification. The FTC had received two public comments in response to the first Federal Register notice. The second notice is a response to those comments as well as an announcement to the public that the commission is seeking OMB clearance to continue conducting the study. The FTC voted 2-0 to approve the publication of the Federal Register notice. Robin Moore of the Bureau of Consumer Protection is the staff contact for the case. [GN] * Republicans Launch Challenge to CFPB Class Action Rule -------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Lawler, writing for The Washington Examiner, reports Republicans are going to the well once more to block an Obama-era regulation through the special rule-erasing tool known as the Congressional Review Act. GOP members of the House and Senate introduced legislation on July 20 to undo the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's newly- finalized arbitration rule through the special procedure. By putting the resolution on President Trump's desk, Republicans hope to stop the bureau from liberalizing class-action lawsuits for financial products. The rule in question would stop banks from utilizing what is referred to as mandatory arbitration, or the practice of including clauses in contracts for credit cards and bank accounts requiring that disputes be handled in private arbitration rather than through the courts. Republicans say the rule is interference in the free market, and trial lawyers, rather than consumers, would benefit. Earlier this year, Republicans succeeding in overturning 14 late Obama-era regulations using the Congressional Review Act, which allows for passage of resolutions with only 51 votes in the Senate. Under Barack Obama appointee Richard Cordray, the bureau finalized the arbitration rule last week, defying the earlier expectations of some in the industry. If Congress erases a rule through the CRA, the agency is prevented from writing a similar regulation in the future without authorization. "The CFPB's anti-arbitration rule hurts consumers and it's another example of the problems caused by this rogue and unaccountable agency," said Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania, the sponsor of the resolution in the House. Rothfus was joined by all the GOP members of the Financial Services Committee on the resolution. [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 * * *