/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170816.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 16, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 161 Headlines 24 HOUR CAREGIVERS: Grafiam Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages ACCOUNT CONTROL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ADVISORY BOARD: Oct. 2 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid ALLIED INTERSTATE: Meyer Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ANGIE'S LIST: "Pill" Sues Over Merger with IAC/InterActiveCorp ARCH COAL: Court Dismisses "Roe et al." ERISA Suit AUDIT & ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Kruse" Suit in W.D. of Wash. AVIS BUDGET: Mendez to Renew Class Cert. Bid in "e-Toll" Suit BARCLAYS EVENTS: Sued Over Illegal Screening of Job Applicants BATON ROUGE, LA: Faces Racketeering Class Action BRECK'S RIDGE: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Meal Period Deduction BROWNING ARMS: Faces "Wilbourn" Suit in Mississippi CAIN INDUSTRIES: Dixie Plumbing Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid CAPT. GEORGE'S: "Gagliastre" Labor Suit Sent to E.D. Virginia CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Conety" Suit in E.D.N.Y. CENTRAL COLLECTION: Lakkard Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. CHICAGO TITLE: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in "Mahon" Suit CLARK COUNTY COLLECTION: Status Hearing in "Petrich" Suit Nixed CLIENT SERVICES: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed COAST TO COAST: Faces "Boone" Suit in N.D. of Indiana COHN RESTAURANT: Faces "Maxwell" Suit in Calif. S. Dist. COLOMBIA: Faces Class Action Over HPV Vaccine CORELOGIC SAFERENT: Faces "Feliciano" Suit Under FCRA, NYFCRA CSC SERVICE: Faces Parkville Realty Suit Over Administrative Fees CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Scheme DENNY'S CORP: Web site Violates ADA, "Haynes" Class Suit Claims DOLGENCORP LLC: "Horgan" Suit Transferred to W.D. of Missouri DOMETIC CORP: Court Denies "Papasan" Plaintiffs' Bid to Reply DUNKIN' DONUTS: No Real Fruit in Blueberry Doughnut, Suit Says DUPONT FABROS: Oct. 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid ECLIPSE AVIATION: 3rd Cir. Tosses Class Suit over Abrupt Layoffs EDUCAP INC: Quick, et al. Seek to Certify Class EGS FINANCIAL: Galli Files Suit in E.D.N.Y. ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Narrows Claims in "Davis" Likenesses Suit ESTATE INFORMATION: Faces "Riley" Suit in E.D.N.Y. EXPRESS SERVICE: "Stoddart" Case Discovery Cutoff Moved to Nov. 5 FAY SERVICING: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks to Certify Class FHI LLC: Faces "Orelus" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation FIRST ADVANTAGE: "Bankhead" Suit Transferred to N.D. of Ga. FLORIDA: Davis Sues Dept. of Corrections Over Prison Policy FMS INVESTMENT: Faces "McKenna" Suit in E.D.N.Y. FORT WAYNE, IN: Original Motion to Certify Class Declared as Moot FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Lilavois" Suit in E.D.N.Y. FULL CITIZENSHIP MD: Craighead May File Amended Suit, Court Says GEICO INDEMNITY: Bid to Certify Class Taken under Submission GENWORTH LIFE: Accused by Avazian of Improperly Lapsing Insurance GROSS POLOWY: "Carbone" Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes GUARDIAN PROTECTION: "Danganan" Suit Transferred to Penn. S.C. HIGHVELD SYNDICATION: Georgiou Seeks to Appeal Judgment HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Background Checks INTEGRATED MEDIA: Brite Bite Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid INTERSTATE CLEANING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Chavez Says INVICTA WATCH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Felice" Suit JAGUAR ANIMAL: Faces "Plant" Lawsuit Over Napo Pharma Merger JPMORGAN CHASE: $1.5M "Pacheco" Case Settlement Has Initial OK KIA MOTORS: Consumers File Class Action Over Breach of Warranty KS INDUSTRIES: Worker Claims Subject to Class Action Waiver LANE LABS-USA: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in Bobo's Drugs Suit LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Firefighters Pension Files Securities Suit LOS ANGELES, CA: Spengler Can't Pursue Class Suit, Court Says M3 USA: "Mauthe" Suit Transferred to S. Dist. of Fla. MASTIHA CORP: Faces "Molina" Suit in S.D.N.Y. MARATHON OIL: Faces Kunneman Properties Suit in Okla. MAXIMUS INC: Violates Securities Laws, Steamfitters Plan Alleges MAXIMUS INC: Oct. 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Awards $2M in Counsel Fees in "Ochoa" MCDONALD'S CORP: Settlement in "Ochoa" Gets Final Approval MIAMI GARDENS: "Saleh" Suit Seeks Certification of Class MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Goldberg" Suit in New York East. Dist. MISSOURI, USA: Court Narrows Claims in "Sargent" Suit NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Leo" Suit Reassigned to Judge Martinotii NEVADA, USA: Court Dismisses "Downing" Suit without Prejudice NORTHERN TIER: "Kendig" Securities Suit Sent to D. Delaware NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Gomez" Suit in E.D.N.Y. NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Bonin et al. File Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ONONDAGA COUNTY, NY: Settles Solitary Confinement Class Action OREGON: Nelson Files Suit v. Dept. of Corrections PALCO INC: Conditional Class Certification Granted in "Wells" PARK AVENUE SOUTH: "Bahena" Case Settlement Gets Preliminary OK PAYPAL INC: Tovar Sues Over Use of Auto Telephone Dialing System PELICAN POINT: Court Denied Certification of Laborers Class PERSONNEL STAFFING: Court to Continue "Haack" Class Cert. Bid PETSMART INC: "Smadja" Suit Seeks to Certify 10 Classes PLACE FOR MOM: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over TCPA Violation PLANET FITNESS: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. of Fla. PREMIUM ASSET: Initial Status Hearing Set for Sept. 19 PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Certified in "Pettit" Charmin Wipes Suit PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT: Court Denies Certification in "Wood" Suit QUALITY SYSTEMS: 9th Cir. Revives Securities Class Action QUIZNO'S MASTER: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. of Fla. REV GROUP: Faces "Morales" Suit in Central Dist. of Calif. REV-1 SOLUTIONS: Court Denied Bid to Certify Class as Moot RIEMER INSURANCE: "Paz" Suit Removed to S. Dist. of Fla. RIVERSIDE, CA: Class Status Sought in Juvenile Custody Case SAFEWAY INC: 9th Cir. Affirms $42M Judgment in "Rodman" Case SAN DIEGO, CA: Kries Files Suit Over Regular Rate of Pay SANTANDER BANK: "Karlberg" Suit Moved to E.D. Penn. SEALIFT HOLDINGS: "Llagas" Suit Seeks to Certify Class SEARS PROTECTION: Court Denied Bid to File Materials under Seal SMILE BRANDS: Faces "Polanco" Suit Over Debt Collection Practices SPANDEX HOUSE: Sued by Sullivan for Minimum Wage & OT Violations SPECIALIZED LOAN: Sept. 20 Hearing on Class Certification Bid ST. LOUIS RAMS: Arnold Seeks to Certify Ticket Holders Classes ST. LOUIS RAMS: Envision et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass SYSCO CORP: Must Produce Docs in "Frieri" Class Suit TAKATA CORP: "Krmpotic" Suit Transferred to S.D. of Florida TAMPA BAY SURGERY: Stapleton et al. Seek to Certify Class TIME WARNER: Dismissal of "Groshek" FCRA Class Action Affirmed TOWNCREST PHARMACY: 9th Cir. Approves Class Action in Arbitration TWO JINNS: Bid for Class Certification Granted in "Shelby" Suit UAG STEVENS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Medical Records Class Action Certified UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Seeks Dismissal of Fraud Class Suit VERMONT: Whistleblower Deposition Request in EB-5 Case Quashed VITAMIN SHOPPE: "Nathan" Suit Moved to S. Dist. of Calif. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Summer Alleges Price-Fixing of Luxury Cars VOLUME SERVICES: Class Certification Bid in "Allchin" Suit Denied WALGREENS: Faces Class Action Over New Sweetened Beverage Tax WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over Kids' Data Privacy Violation WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Sarrell Seeks Collective Action Status WELLS FARGO: Card Processing Unit Sued Over Excessive Fees WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces "Zeiger" Suit Over "DHA" Label in Milk WILCOX DEVELOPMENT: "Mejia" Suit Alleges FLSA, NYLL Violations WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: "Embree" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ZODIAC U.S.: Approval of Settlement in "Cuzick" Action Sought * Boyd County, Ky. Mulls Suit Against Opioid Distributors * CFBP Rule to Benefit Class-Action Lawyers Than Consumers * Class Action Attorneys Continue to Target Food Companies * Texas' Hensarling Mulls Contempt Charge v. CFPB Director * Washington Republicans Criticize CFPB's Arbitration Rule ********* 24 HOUR CAREGIVERS: Grafiam Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- LOUISE GRAFIAM, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 24 HOUR CAREGIVERS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC671257 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 4, 2017), arises from the Defendants' alleged California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from their failure to provide meal periods, to authorize and permit rest periods, to pay minimum and straight time wages, to pay overtime wages, to maintain accurate records of hours worked, to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, and to furnish accurate wage statements. Based in Sherman Oaks, California, 24 Hour Caregivers, Inc., owns and operates an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Los Angeles County, for the purposes of providing caregivers to the general public, those that required assistance with daily living. The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Justin F. Marquez, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1820 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com ACCOUNT CONTROL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JACQUELINE OLSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACCOUNT CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01067-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiffs further request that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XRh9wLHj The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com ADVISORY BOARD: Oct. 2 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid ------------------------------------------------------ Federman & Sherwood on Aug. 7 disclosed that on August 3, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against The Advisory Board Company. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is January 21, 2015 through February 23, 2016. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all The Advisory Board Company shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. Parties may move the Court no later than Monday, October 2, 2017 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please contact: Robin Hester FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN] ALLIED INTERSTATE: Meyer Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SHARON MEYER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01106 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a proposed class in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kSQzjRiS The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com ANGIE'S LIST: "Pill" Sues Over Merger with IAC/InterActiveCorp -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID PILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANGIE'S LIST, INC., SCOTT A. DURCHSLAG, THOMAS R. EVANS, GEORGE D. BELL, MARK BRITTO, ANGELA R. HICKS BOWMAN, MICHAEL S. MAURER, DAVID B. MULLEN, MICHAEL D. SANDS, H. ERIC SEMLER, SUSAN THRONSON, IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, ANGI HOMESERVICES INC., and CASA MERGER SUB, INC. Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02461-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., July 20, 2017), alleges that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 in connection with a transaction wherein Angie's List, Inc. will be acquired by IAC/InterActiveCorp, was false and misleading. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each holder of Angie's List common stock is entitled to either (a) exchange on a one-to-one ratio each share of Angie's List common stock for a single share of Class A common stock, with one vote per share, in Parent Sub, and/or (b) receive payment in the amount of $8.50 in cash for each share of Angie's List common stock up to an aggregate total of $130 million for all of Angie's List shares of common stock issued and outstanding. Allegedly, the S-4 omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders it false and misleading, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. In particular, the S-4 contains materially incomplete and/or misleading information concerning, inter alia, (a) the financial analyses performed by Angie's List's Financial Advisors in support of their so-called "fairness opinions" that approved the Merger Consideration, including the projections that the Financial Advisors relied upon in performing their financial analyses, and (b) the sales process leading to the Merger, including potential conflicts of interest. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' wrongdoing. ANGIE'S LIST, INC. operates a nationwide local services consumer review service and marketplace. Angie's List helps facilitate transactions between individual consumers and service professionals by providing an online directory that allows users to read and publish reviews of local businesses and contractors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Schuckit, Esq. SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES PC 4545 Northwestern Drive Zionsville, IN 46077 Phone: 317-363-2400 Fax: 317-363-2257 Email: rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com - and - Carl L. Stine, Esq. Sean M. Zaroogian, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 Fax: 212-486-2093 Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com Email: szaroogian@wolfpopper.com ARCH COAL: Court Dismisses "Roe et al." ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------- Judge Carol E. Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the Arch Defendants' and Mercer Trust Co.'s motions to dismiss the case captioned DOUGLAS R. ROE, ELMER BUSH, RONALD K. HUFF and JEROME McLAUGHLIN on behalf of themselves and the Arch Coal, Inc. Employee Thrift Plan, and/or on behalf of a class consisting of similarly situated participants of the Plan, Plaintiffs, v. ARCH COAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:15-CV-910 (CEJ)(E.D. Mo.). The Plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of the Arch Coal, Inc. Employee Thrift Plan, bring this consolidated class action pursuant to Sections 404, 405, 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). They claim that the Defendants breached duties of prudence and loyalty in administering the Plan. The Plan is a retirement savings plan which required the Arch Coal Stock Fund to include Arch Coal stock as one of the investment options offered to the Plan participants. During the period July 27, 2012 to Nov. 12, 2015, Arch Coal was the sponsor of the Plan. According to the amended complaint, the Plan and its participants suffered tens of millions of dollars of losses during the Class Period, as the market price of Arch Coal Stock fell from approximately $680 on July 27, 2012 to $1.42 on Nov. 12, 2015. On or about Nov. 12, 2015, the Plan's investment in the Fund was forcibly liquidated. Before and during the Class Period, massive amounts of publicly-available information about the collapse of the coal industry in general, and Arch Coal in particular, was generated. On Jan. 11, 2016, Arch Coal filed for bankruptcy. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants failed to protect the interests of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries, in violation of their legal obligations under ERISA. This matter is before the Court on the separate motions of the Arch Defendants and Mercer, in its role as the Plan's trustee, to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs have responded. The Arch Defendants argue that the allegations in Count I fail to state a claim for breach of any duty to manage the Plan prudently and that the Plaintiffs' claim is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer. Judge Jackson concludes that the ruling in Dudenhoeffer applies in this case such that, absent allegations of special circumstances, the Plaintiffs cannot maintain a breach of prudence claim based on the fiduciaries' alleged failure to recognize public information indicating that the Arch Coal stock was improperly valued. The Plaintiffs have also failed to provide any facts or law to support their allegation that the Defendants violated their duty of candor. In Count II, the Plaintiffs claim that the Arch Defendants breached their duty of loyalty by continuing to allow the investment of the Plan's assets in Arch Coal stock throughout the Class Period despite the fact that they knew or should have known that such investment was imprudent as a retirement vehicle. The Judge explains that the Plaintiffs' mere allegation that the Arch Defendants owned Arch Coal stock and maintained options and stock awards is insufficient to state a claim of breach of the duty of loyalty. In Count III, the Plaintiffs claim that the Arch Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (i) failing to monitor their appointees in administration of the Plan; (ii) failing to evaluate their performance; iii) failing to have a proper system in place for doing so; (iv) failing to ensure the monitored fiduciaries "appreciate the true extent" of Arch Coal's situation; (v) failing to provide complete and accurate information to their appointees; and (vi) failing to remove inadequately performing appointees. Because they have failed to state a claim for an underlying breach of fiduciary duty, Judge Jackson finds that the Plaintiffs' claims for failure to adequately monitor these fiduciaries must also fail. In Count IV, the Plaintiffs claim that Mercer failed to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's assets. They specifically allege that Mercer knew or should have known that Arch Coal stock was not a suitable and appropriate investment for the Plan. Because there was no breach of duty on behalf of the Arch Defendants, Mercer cannot be liable as a co-fiduciary for the same conduct. For these reasons, Judge Jackson granted the Arch Defendants' and Mercer's motions to dismiss. She denied as moot the joint motion to stay discovery as well as Mercer's motion for leave to file supplemental authority. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/k90po0 from Leagle.com. Douglas R Roe, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher O. Bauman -- cbauman@bbdlc.com -- BLITZ AND BARDGETT. Douglas R Roe, Plaintiff, represented by Mark K. Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- KESSLER AND TOPAZ, Michael J. Klein -- mklein@ssbny.com -- STULL AND STULL, pro hac vice & Robert D. Blitz -- rblitz@bbdlc.com -- BLITZ AND BARDGETT. Ronald K. Huff, Plaintiff, represented by Mark K. Gyandoh, KESSLER AND TOPAZ. Jerome McLaughlin, Plaintiff, represented by Mark K. Gyandoh, KESSLER AND TOPAZ. Elmer Bush, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff, represented by Christopher O. Bauman, BLITZ AND BARDGETT. Elmer Bush, Plaintiff, represented by Don R. Lolli -- dlolli@dysarttaylor.com -- DYSART AND TAYLOR, Edward W. Ciolko -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- KESSLER AND TOPAZ, Julie E. Siebert-Johnson -- jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- KESSLER AND TOPAZ, Mark K. Gyandoh, KESSLER AND TOPAZ & James A. Maro, Jr. -- jmaro@ktmc.com -- KESSLER AND TOPAZ, pro hac vice. Arch Coal Inc, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell -- jsrussell@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, Darci F. Madden -- dfmadden@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP & Michael G. Biggers, -- mgbiggers@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP. The Finance Committee of the Board of Directors of Arch Coal Inc, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell, BRYAN CAVE LLP. Theodore D Sands, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell, BRYAN CAVE LLP. John W Eaves, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell, BRYAN CAVE LLP. J Thomas Jones, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell, BRYAN CAVE LLP. George C. Morris, III, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell, BRYAN CAVE LLP. Paul A Lang, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell, BRYAN CAVE LLP. James A Sabala, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell, BRYAN CAVE LLP. Steven F Leer, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell, BRYAN CAVE LLP. Robert G Potter, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell, BRYAN CAVE LLP. AUDIT & ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Kruse" Suit in W.D. of Wash. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Audit & Adjustment Company, Inc. The case is styled as Shelby Kruse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Audit & Adjustment Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01199 (W.D. Wash., August 8, 2017). Audit & Adjustment Company is a Washington based debt collection agency founded in 1996.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Matthew Pesicka, Esq. CONCORD LAW, P.C. Waterfront Park Building 144 RAILROAD AVENUE, Suite 236 Edmonds, WA 98020 Tel: (206) 512-8029 Email: Ryan@ConcordLawSeattle.com AVIS BUDGET: Mendez to Renew Class Cert. Bid in "e-Toll" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOSE MENDEZ, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC. d/b/a BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC. and AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC; and HIGHWAY TOLL ADMINISTRATION, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:11-cv-06537-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will renew before the Hon. Jose L. Linares, U.S.D.J., at the United States District Court, Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07101, his motion seeking: 1. certification of a Nationwide Class, a Florida Subclass, and a New Jersey Subclass; 2. appointment of Plaintiff as representative of the Classes; and 3. appointment of the undersigned attorneys and firms as Class Counsel. This is a putative class action brought on behalf of those who were allegedly charged non-discounted toll charges and convenience fees when they rented vehicles equipped with an electronic system to pay tolls known as "e-Toll" from locations and websites that were owned by, operated by, or connected to Defendants Avis Budget Group and Avis Rent-A-Car System, LLC. Defendant Highway Toll Administration, LLC ("HTA") was a vendor of the Avis Entities that supplied and administered the e-Toll toll collection service. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=muYsmKWe The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Jeremy Nash, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623 3000 Facsimile: (973) 623 0858 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com jnash@litedepalma.com BARCLAYS EVENTS: Sued Over Illegal Screening of Job Applicants -------------------------------------------------------------- Unlawful screening of job applicants seeking employment at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn violates federal and state law, according to a federal-court class action lawsuit filed by Outten & Golden LLP and the nonprofit organization Youth Represent. Filed in federal court in the Eastern District of New York, the lawsuit alleges that Barclays used "flawed and discriminatory criminal history screening policies and practices" to deny employment opportunities to otherwise qualified job applicants. The defendants are Barclays Events Center, LLC, doing business as Barclays Center, Levy Restaurants, Inc., and Professional Sports Catering LLC. The lawsuit alleges violations of federal and state laws regulating the use of criminal history screening policies and practices -- and is a first of its kind class action suit to challenge an employer's violation of New York City's recently enacted "Ban the Box" legislation -- the Fair Chance Act. The named plaintiff, Felipe Kelly, applied for a job in August 2016 to work for a restaurant operated by Levy Restaurants and/or Professional Sports Catering LLC at Barclays. Mr. Kelly alleges Barclays refused to hire him after subjecting him to a criminal background check. Defendants never provided Mr. Kelly with the information they used to deny him employment, and never provided him with the "Fair Chance Notice" that employers are now required to provide applicants under New York City law, the lawsuit alleges. According to the lawsuit, "Because Defendants never provided Mr. Kelly with crucial information regarding his denial of employment, Mr. Kelly was unaware of what information was being reported on him, unable to review the information reported about him for accuracy and completeness, contextualize even true information, review Defendants' arguments (if any) for why they believed his conviction barred him from employment, and/or explain why he was nonetheless entitled to employment, including any evidence of rehabilitation and good conduct." Mr. Kelly, a resident of Bronx County, N.Y., is represented by Ossai Miazad, Lewis M. Steel and Christopher M. McNerney of Outten & Golden LLP, and Michael C. Pope and Eric Eingold of Youth Represent. Outten & Golden LLP and Youth Represent will seek to have the case certified as a class action that covers proposed classes of affected job applicants since Oct. 27, 2015. Christopher M. McNerney, of Outten & Golden LLP, said, "As a matter of basic fairness, federal and New York state laws require that job applicants with criminal histories be provided with the same criminal history information relied on by the prospective employer so that they might evaluate that information, ensure it is accurate, and even if it is accurate explain why they nonetheless are qualified for employment This legal framework is an essential aspect of reentering society for individuals with criminal records." Michael C. Pope, of Youth Represent, said, "State and federal law are clear: job applicants with criminal histories are entitled to be advised of and review the source and content of background checks. Job applicants like Mr. Kelly and many others are entitled to provide information regarding the criminal history -- including the circumstances of their criminal history and their rehabilitation and good conduct." The case is "Felipe Kelly, et al., v. Barclays Event Center, et al.," Class Action Complaint No. 1:17-cv-04600 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN] BATON ROUGE, LA: Faces Racketeering Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Jim Mustian, writing for The Advocate, reports that with the help of a local judge, a pretrial services company in Baton Rouge has held hundreds of inmates "ransom" in recent years by requiring they shell out hefty fees on top of their court-ordered bail before they can be released from jail, according to a new class- action lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed on Aug. 7 by the ACLU of Louisiana and the Southern Poverty Law Center, accuses the company, Rehabilitation Home Incarceration, of violating state and federal racketeering laws by "extorting" an initial $525 payment -- and hundreds of dollars in subsequent fees -- from defendants assigned to pretrial supervision. "Those who cannot afford the fee languish in jail for days, weeks or even months as their loved ones scramble to assemble money to pay off RHI," the lawsuit says. The lawsuit, which names East Baton Baton Rouge Parish as a defendant, claims local jail officials have been complicit in "wrongfully detaining" inmates before they have paid RHI for their pretrial supervision. The lawsuit also alleges RHI has benefited from its political support of 19th Judicial District Judge Trudy White, who according to the lawsuit has "indiscriminately" ordered hundreds of defendants to complete services offered by the family-owned company -- including electronic monitoring -- without even inquiring about their financial resources. The company, which does not have a formal contract with the court, provides its services through "an informal agreement" with Judge White, the lawsuit alleges. Founded in 1993, RHI has supervised "thousands of clients" in East Baton Rouge, Orleans, Ascension and Tangipahoa parishes, according to its website. The lawsuit describes RHI officials as "political allies" of White who supported her successful re-election bid in 2014. RHI is led by Cleve Dunn Sr., whose son once reportedly ran White's campaign. The lawsuit, citing court records, says Judge White, after winning re-election, ordered more than 300 criminal defendants to complete RHI's services in 2015 and 2016. It's unclear whether any other judges in the 19th Judicial District are sending business to RHI. Reached by phone on Aug. 7, Judge White refused to comment on the racketeering lawsuit. Mr. Dunn, who unlike White was named as a defendant in the litigation, could not be reached for comment. The lawsuit raises a number of allegations first reported last year by WAFB-TV. In many cases, Judge White assigns defendants to undergo pretrial supervision even before they have appeared before her, the lawsuit claims, and "does not ask arrestees any questions before assigning them to RHI, such as whether an arrestee can afford to pay bond or RHI's initial or monthly fees." According to the lawsuit, Judge White does not allow arrestees to be heard at probable cause hearings and assigns arrestees to RHI supervision "without conducting an individualized determination of the need for, or the conditions of RHI supervision. "Rather than conduct these inquiries, Judge White signs an order making RHI supervision a condition of release on bond, without instruction about the terms of this supervision," the lawsuit says. RHI, in turn, instructs jail officials not to release pretrial inmates ordered to undergo its services until RHI has received payment. The lawsuit says jail officials have violated inmates' rights by detaining them "beyond expiration of a valid order of confinement, without probable cause." The lawsuit says RHI, despite charging "significant fees for its supervision," does not typically require supervisees to make "substantive reports" to their monitors beyond complying with a curfew. The lawsuit also alleges that Dunn and RHI monitors "routinely threaten" program participants with re-arrest if they fail to make monthly $225 payments, a practice described in the lawsuit as "an unlawful use of fear." "Dunn's use of RHI to extort money from arrestees assigned by Judge White constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity," the lawsuit says. "These actions are a regular way of conducting the ongoing business of RHI." [GN] BRECK'S RIDGE: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Meal Period Deduction ------------------------------------------------------------- GARRY PARKER, on behalf of himself and other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRECK'S RIDGE, LLC, and BRECK'S PAVING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00633- EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, July 20, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff was not paid for all of his compensable hours worked due to an automatic meal period deduction in the amount of thirty (30) minutes per day even though Named Plaintiff did not receive a bona fide meal period resulting in unpaid overtime wages for the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint. The case was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Plaintiff was employed as a foreman and/or general laborer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Phone: (614) 949-1181 Fax: (614) 386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Phone: (614) 704-0546 Fax: (614) 573-9826 Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com BROWNING ARMS: Faces "Wilbourn" Suit in Mississippi --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Browning Arms Company. The case is styled as James Wilbourn, individually and as representative of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Browning Arms Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-23002-KMW (N.D. Miss., August 8, 2017). Browning Arms Company is an American maker of firearms and fishing gear. Founded in Morgan, Utah, the company offers a wide variety of firearms including shotguns, rifles, and pistols.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik S. Heninger, Esq. HENINGER BURGE VARGO & DAVIS, LLP 2146 Highland Avenue Birmingham, AL 35205 Tel: (205) 326-3336 Email: erik@hgdlawfirm.com CAIN INDUSTRIES: Dixie Plumbing Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned DIXIE PLUMBING SPECIALTIES, INC., a Georgia corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. CAIN INDUSTRIES, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No2:17-cv-01095-JPS. (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to: 1. certify a class of: "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, (3) from whom Defendants did not obtain "prior express invitation or permission" to send fax advertisements, or (4) with whom Defendants did not have an established business relationship, or (5) where the fax advertisements did not include an opt-out notice compliant with 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)". 2. appoint Plaintiff as the class representative; and 3. appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LsV2VzUv The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Ross M. Good, Esq. Anderson & Wanca 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com rgood@andersonwanca.com CAPT. GEORGE'S: "Gagliastre" Labor Suit Sent to E.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Chris Gagliastre, Zachary Tarry, and Olga Zayneeva, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAPT. GEORGE'S SEAFOOD RESTAURANTS, LP; CAPTAIN GEORGE'S OF SOUTH CAROLINA, LP; CAPTAIN GEORGE'S OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC.; THE CAPTAIN AT THE BEACH, LLC; CAPTAIN KDH, LLC; PIT CO 1, LLC; PITNORTH, LLC; LIDESLAMBOUS, INC.; PITSILAMBOUS, INC.; GEORGE PITSILIDES; SHERRY PITSILIDES; NICOLE PERKINS; AND KRISTINA CHASTAIN; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-4, Defendants, (originally, Case No. 4:17-cv-01308, D.S.C., May 19, 2017) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00379-RAJ-RJK, according to a case docket dated July 19, 2017. The case alleges that Defendants have repeatedly violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by improperly applying a tip credit to servers' wages. The case also asserts impermissible deductions in violation of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. Defendant is a restaurant. Plaintiffs worked for Captain George's as servers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick McLaughlin, Esq. WUKELA LAW FIRM 403 Second Loop Rd. PO Box 13057 Florence, SC 29504-3057 Phone: 843-669-5634 Fax: 843-669-5150 Email: Patrick@wukelalaw.com - and - Andrew Biller, Esq. Andrew Kimble, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Phone: 513-651-3700 Fax: 513-665-0219 Email: abiller@msdlegal.com Email: akimble@msdlegal.com Defendant is represented by: John P. Hutchins, Esq. LECLAIRRYAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1170 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2350 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 267-2733 Fax: (404) 267-2750 CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Conety" Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management Services, LP. The case is styled as Sean Conety, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital Management Services, LP, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04627 (E.D. N.Y., August 7, 2017). Capital Management is a nationally licensed and recognized collections agency, providing the highest level of delinquent receivables resolution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com CENTRAL COLLECTION: Lakkard Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled BARBARA LAKKARD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL COLLECTION CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01070-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a proposed class in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0Oav7hFA The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com CHICAGO TITLE: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in "Mahon" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned DEBORAH MAHON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CHICAGO TITLE INS. CO., Civil No. 3:09CV00690(AWT)(D. Conn.), Magistrate Judge Sarah A.L. Merriam of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel discovery and denied as moot the Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order. This class action relates to title insurance refinance rates. The Plaintiff served her First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production on Sept. 10, 2009. The Request for Production No. 17 sought any and all documents constituting communication by, between or among the Defendants and/or any of their Affiliates or Agents on the one hand and the Connecticut Insurance Department on the other hand that discuss, mention or refer in any way to the Refinance Rate. The Defendant initially objected to the request on the grounds that it pertained to merits discovery. After commencement of discovery on the merits of the Plaintiff's claims, the Defendant asserted additional objections, and stated that, notwithstanding the objections, it was not withholding any document that is responsive, non-privileged, and consistent with its non-objectionable interpretation of this Discovery Request. It claims that documents potentially responsive to this request had been previously identified in a privilege log dated Aug. 2, 2010, which was supplemented on Sept. 22, 2010. The Defendant served supplemental privilege logs on April 27 and May 30, 2017. These logs list additional documents that the Defendant has determined are responsive to Request 17. From these logs, the Plaintiff identifies 30 documents that were withheld as privileged solely on the basis of section 38a-15(g) of the Connecticut General Statutes. According to the parties, each of these documents pertains to a market conduct examination of defendant that was conducted by the Connecticut Insurance Department in 2010. The relevance of these documents is not in dispute; rather, the controversy arises over whether these documents are privileged, and therefore protected from discovery. Plaintiff Mahon has filed a Motion to Compel seeking the production of a number of documents withheld on the basis of privilege. She also seeks to compel testimony regarding these documents. The Defendant has submitted opposition to the Plaintiff's motion, and the Plaintiff has filed a reply. The Defendant has filed a Motion for a Protective Order, seeking protection from producing a witness to testify about the documents in question pending resolution of the Plaintiff's motion to compel. The Plaintiff has filed a memorandum in opposition to the Defendant's motion, and the Defendant has filed a reply. Magistrate Judge Merriam held that the documents related to the market conduct examination in the possession and control of the Defendant are not privileged under section 38a-15(g) of the Connecticut General Statutes such that they are protected from disclosure in civil discovery. Accordingly, she granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. The Defendant shall produce those documents identified in Exhibit A to the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel forthwith, and no later than Aug. 14, 2017. It shall also produce a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 4 of the Plaintiff's Notice to Produce. In light of the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Merriam denied as moot the Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. She noted that this is not a Recommended Ruling but an order regarding discovery which is reviewable pursuant to the "clearly erroneous" statutory standard of review. As such, it is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified by the District Judge upon motion timely made. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/IHyoC2 from Leagle.com. Deborah Mahon, Plaintiff, represented by Mathew P. Jasinski -- mjasinski@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC. Deborah Mahon, Plaintiff, represented by William H. Narwold -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC & Laura W. Ray -- lray@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC. Chicago Title Ins Co, Defendant, represented by Derek Diaz -- ddiaz@hahnlaw.com -- Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan S. Bowman -- jbowman@cohenandwolf.com -- Cohen & Wolf, P.C., Robert J. Fogarty -- rjfogarty@hahnlaw.com -- Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, pro hac vice, Steven A. Goldfarb -- sagoldfarb@hahnlaw.com -- Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, pro hac vice & Stuart M. Katz -- skatz@cohenandwolf.com -- Cohen & Wolf, P.C.. CLARK COUNTY COLLECTION: Status Hearing in "Petrich" Suit Nixed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Daniel Petrich, the Plaintiff, v. Clark County Collection Service, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 17-cv- 02396 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order striking a status hearing set for August 29, 2017. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 3, 2017, all pending motions are denied as moot. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MXTzNpNC CLIENT SERVICES: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MORGAN OTTMANN and SHEILA SCHMITZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17- cv-01069-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a proposed class in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jOljOvcY The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com COAST TO COAST: Faces "Boone" Suit in N.D. of Indiana ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coast To Coast Financial Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Sedrick Boone, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Coast To Coast Financial Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00333 (N.D. Ind., August 7, 2017). Coast To Coast Financial Solutions, Inc. is a collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. Marcus & Zelman LLC 1500 Allaire Ave Ste 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Tel: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com COHN RESTAURANT: Faces "Maxwell" Suit in Calif. S. Dist. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cohn Restaurant Group, Inc. The case is styled as Austin Maxwell, individually and On behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cohn Restaurant Group, Inc. doing business as: The Melting Pot, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01609-JLS-BGS (S.D. Cal., August 9, 2017). Cohn Restaurant Group, Inc. owns and operates restaurants in the San Diego area and Maui.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George Thomas Martin, III, Esq. Martin &Bontrager, APC 6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 960 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Tel: (323) 940-1697 Fax: (323) 238-8095 Email: tom@mblawapc.com COLOMBIA: Faces Class Action Over HPV Vaccine --------------------------------------------- Carlos Guevara, writing for Medscape, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed in Colombia against the Colombian government and Merck Sharp & Dohme by a group representing 700 individuals who allege that they have been damaged by Gardasil, the company's human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. An ongoing class action lawsuit over the HPV vaccine in Japan involves 63 plaintiffs. The Colombian Rebuilding Hope Association (Asociacion Reconstruyendo Esperanza), represented by the lawyer Monica Leon del Rio, filed a class action on August 4 seeking compensation of at least 490,000 million Colombian pesos (approximately $30.5 million). The association is calling for compensation for the damage allegedly due to the vaccine, mainly symptoms that affect the immune and neurologic systems, and also is calling for a declaration that the vaccine is unsafe. However, the safety of the HPV vaccine has been repeatedly confirmed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the World Health Organization (WHO). In a 2009 JAMA article on the postlicensure safety surveillance for quadrivalent HPV recombinant vaccine, the authors reported that the most frequently reported side effects were lower grade, including excessive pain in the area of application and occasional headaches or dizziness, at rates of 7.5 cases per 100,000 doses. The most comprehensive study on this subject followed up on more than 2 million women and reported a statistically nonsignificant association between exposure to the vaccine and severe adverse events, such as demyelinating diseases (including Guillain-Barre syndrome). HPV Vaccines in Colombia In Colombia, the use of HPV vaccine in government public health initiatives dates back to 2006, with implementation of the three- dose scheme in 2012. Dr Lina Maria Trujillo, coordinator of the Gynecologic Oncology Group of the National Institute of Oncology in Colombia, commented to Medscape Medical News that the lack of trust started in 2014, when a group of girls who had recently been vaccinated presented various symptoms, possibly associated with food poisoning. Although a causal link was never shown, the rumor that the vaccine had caused the symptoms spread, and the association for the alleged victims of the vaccine, led by the local lawyer Monica Leon del Rio, was formed. Ms. Leon del Rio had already submitted similar lawsuits, which were made public knowledge by the Colombian Rebuilding Hope Association. A 2015 lawsuit aimed to force the Colombian government to generate a record of cases of vaccine adverse effects, as well as to institute federal monthly compensation to the alleged victims. [GN] CORELOGIC SAFERENT: Faces "Feliciano" Suit Under FCRA, NYFCRA ------------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDINNE FELICIANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against CORELOGIC SAFERENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05507-UA (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2017), alleges that Defendant fails to ensure that the information it compiles from the New York State Office of Court Administration (OCA) about proceedings brought before various housing courts in New York is complete, accurate or fair -- that is to say, that it fails to ensure that the credit reports it sells comply with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the General Business Law. CORELOGIC SAFERENT, LLC is a credit reporting agency that, inter alia, sells credit reports to landlords pertaining to individuals who have filed applications to rent residential housing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Fishman, Esq. FISHMAN ROZEN, LLP 305 Broadway, Suite 900 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 897-5840 - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Alexis Castillo, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Phone: (914) 934-9200 - and - Andrew Bell, Esq. LOCKS LAW FIRM PLLC 800 Third Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 838-3333 CSC SERVICE: Faces Parkville Realty Suit Over Administrative Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- PARKVILLE REALTY ASSOCIATES, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. CSC SERVICE WORKS, INC., Case No. 607833/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., August 4, 2017), is brought on behalf of all persons, firms and entities in the United States, who entered into agreements with CSC for the installation and management of washing machines, dryers and the like on the premises owned and managed by Class Members and who have been subject to "administrative fees" notwithstanding the fact that the agreements do not provide for the payment of such fees. CSC Service Works, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware with offices located in Plainview, New York. CSC is a company engaged in the business of, inter alia, providing laundry solutions for multifamily, residential and commercial industries as well as vending services for convenience stores and gasoline stations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH A. ELAN Office and Post Office Address 217 Broadway - Suite 603 New York, NY 10007-2909 Telephone: (212) 619-0261 Facsimile: (212) 271-4230 E-mail: elanfirm@yahoo.com CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Scheme ----------------------------------------------------- A new class-action lawsuit has been filed against CVS Health alleging that the company has engaged in a massive fraudulent scheme with third parties in order to increase profits by driving up generic prescription drug costs for consumers who purchase them using insurance, according to Hagens Berman. CVS earns more than $10 billion in profit annually from drug sales. The lawsuit, filed Aug. 7, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, says CVS knowingly colludes with third-party pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to raise the prices of generic drugs, charging consumers what it calls a "co-pay," when in reality a significant portion of this amount is kicked back to PBMs. CVS also earns more money from the transaction compared to customers who don't use insurance. PBMs use their marketing leverage with pharmacies to negotiate lower prices that the insurance companies have to pay to pharmacies. Pharmacies, in turn, get the benefit of having enrollees in the insurance plan coming to their stores to get their prescriptions filled. If you used your insurance plan to fill a prescription for generic drugs at a CVS pharmacy, you may be entitled to relief. Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against CVS for prescription drug cost increases. "Consumers are led to believe that pharmacists have their best interest in mind. That's what CVS would want you to believe, anyway," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman. "In reality, CVS is engaging in a widespread fraudulent scheme to overcharge the public for certain generic drugs." Berman added, "When customers go to CVS to fill their prescription, they assume they should use insurance to buy their drugs. In fact, pharmacists often insist on getting customers' insurance information, even if the customers don't want to use it. Now we know why -- pharmacies are making more money from insurance purchases than cash purchases because of the secret deals they reached with PBMs." Generic Drug Pricing Fraud Explained The lawsuit details a two-pronged drug pricing scheme perpetrated by CVS since at least 2010 that attorneys say violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and federal ERISA laws. In the first part of the scheme, customers who use their insurance to fill prescriptions at CVS are actually charged a higher price for the same medication than those who pay with cash or don't use their insurance, according to the suit. CVS never tells customers that they can save money by not using insurance. The suit's named plaintiff, Megan Schultz, used her insurance to purchase a certain generic drug at her local CVS. Under her plan she paid $165.68, but if she simply paid in cash, without using her insurance, she would have paid only $92 -- a whopping 45 percent difference that CVS never told her about. In the second part of the scheme, CVS overcharges customers by collecting "co-pays" that exceed the pharmacists' price and profit, again unbeknown to the customer, according to the complaint. CVS gives this extra cash back to PBMs, again part of an undisclosed agreement between the PBMs and CVS. "This 'co-pay' is not a co-pay at all, but CVS forcing its customers to overpay for drugs that they could get for cheaper without insurance," Mr. Berman said. "Much of this money goes to paying off the PBMs who in turn keep CVS on their pharmacy network." These contracts between CVS and the PBMs are sealed from public view under strict confidentiality agreements, barring consumers from ever learning the true source of their drug cost. The lawsuit states that this hidden fraud violates federal racketing laws. The suit also brings claims of fraudulent concealment, fiduciary conflicts of interest, lack of adequate care and violations of state consumer rights laws. Under ERISA, CVS has an obligation as a fiduciary to act "solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries," according to the suit, and attorneys believe that by engaging in this alleged fraudulent scheme, CVS failed to uphold this duty, and that by basing its profits in this collusion with a third party, created a blatant conflict of interest that harmed its customers. Mr. Berman added, "In 2016, CVS proclaimed in a 'social responsibility' report that it is 'committed to bringing accessible and affordable care to as many people as we can. It's the right thing to do . . .' Despite that awareness, CVS has only sought to profit from those it serves." About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities. The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs' Hot List eight times. [GN] DENNY'S CORP: Web site Violates ADA, "Haynes" Class Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned DENNIS HAYNES, Individually v. DENNY'S CORPORATION & DFO, LLC, Case No. 0:17-cv-61307-KMW (S.D. Fla., July 1, 2017), the plaintiff individually, on his behalf and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, seeks injunctive relief, and attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Denny's Corporation is the franchisor and operator of one of America's largest franchised full-service restaurant chains, based on the number of restaurants. DFO, LLC is a subsidiary of Denny's and owns and operates a chain of restaurants in the United States and internationally. The Companies are headquartered in Spartanburg, South Carolina. According to the complaint, subsequent to the effective date of the ADA, the Defendants constructed, or caused to be constructed, a Web site located at http://www.dennys.com/ The Defendants are the owners, operators, lessors or lessees of the Web site, which supports, is an extension of, is in conjunction with, is complementary and supplemental to, the public accommodation. The Plaintiff alleges that the features of the Web site are inaccessible to the visually impaired, including the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Michael Cullen, III, Esq. THOMAS B. BACON, P.A. 621 South Federal Highway, Suite 4 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 462-0600 Facsimile: (954) 462-1717 E-mail: cullen@thomasbaconlaw.com - and - Thomas B. Bacon Esq. THOMAS B. BACON, P.A. 644 North Mc Donald St. Mt. Dora, FL 32757 Telephone: (954) 478-7811 E-mail: tbb@thomasbaconlaw.com DOLGENCORP LLC: "Horgan" Suit Transferred to W.D. of Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Howard Horgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dolgencorp, L.L.C. doing business as: Dollar General Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00107, filed on June 26, 2017, was removed from the District of Vermont, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City) on July 31, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-00584-GAF to the proceeding. The case is assigned to District Judge Gary A. Fenner. Dolgencorp, doing business as Dollar General Corporation, operates as a discount merchandiser.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristin A. Ross , Esq. Van Dorn, Curtiss & Rousseau, PLLC P.O. Box 263 Main Street, Route 10 Orford, NH 03777-0263 Tel: (603) 353-4000 Fax: (603) 353-4567 DOMETIC CORP: Court Denies "Papasan" Plaintiffs' Bid to Reply ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the case captioned CATHERINE PAPASAN, NELSON GOEHLE, ANDREW YOUNG, JIMMY BYERS, CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON, and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DOMETIC CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, No. 4:16-cv-02117-HSG (N.D. Cal.), requested Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, to grant leave to file a two-page response to the Defendant's Statement of Recent Decision. In an August 4 Order, Judge Gilliam, Jr. denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave. On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint. On Aug. 19, 2016, Dometic filed its Motion to Dismiss. After briefing on the Motion to Dismiss, the parties appeared before the Court on Nov. 17, 2016, for oral argument. The Motion to Dismiss is currently under consideration by the Court. On July 27, 2017, Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered an Order on the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification dismissing in its entirety the Varner Class Action against Dometic under Rule 56. On Aug. 2, the Court granted the Defendant leave to file its Statement of Recent Decision, containing a citation to and providing a copy of a summary judgment dismissal order in Varner et al. v. Dometic Corp. ("Varner Order"). Given that the Varner Order concerns the same allegedly defective gas absorption refrigerators as this case, the Plaintiffs seek leave to file a two-page response to the Defendant's Statement of Recent Decision, in order to provide the Court with notable distinctions between this action and the Varner action beyond the procedural distinction that the Varner Order was at the Rule 56 stage, following denial of a Rule 12 motion and discovery. A full-text copy of the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave is available at https://is.gd/vzHYGn from Leagle.com. Catherine Papasan, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Catherine Papasan, Plaintiff, represented by Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede -- ashleyb@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Nelson Goehle, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Andrew Young, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Jimmy Byers, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Christopher Johnston, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Dometic Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter Allen Wald -- peter.wald@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Adam L. Rosenbloom - - adam.rosenbloom@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Emily Rose Goebel, Latham & Watkins LLP, Marcy Christina Priedeman -- marcy.priedeman@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & Robert Christian Collins, III -- robert.collins@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP, pro hac vice. DUNKIN' DONUTS: No Real Fruit in Blueberry Doughnut, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Linze Rice, writing for dnainfo, reports that a class-action fraud lawsuit has been filed against Dunkin' Donuts after a glazed blueberry doughnut bought at a South Loop shop allegedly lacked any actual blueberries. Bartosz Grabowski bought the doughnut Dec. 10 at the Dunkin' Donuts at 1231 S. Wabash Ave. but it did not contain any real fruit, the suit alleges. Mr. Grabowski filed the class-action lawsuit July 9 in federal court. He is representing more than 100 people in Illinois who all claim they, too, bought products such as doughnuts, Munchkins and crumb cakes with the belief they were made with actual berries -- and not "imitation blueberries." The blueish bits in the bakery products "resemble, and in fact are specifically made to resemble, actual blueberries or pieces of actual blueberry due to their blue color and round shape," Grabowski's lawyers contend. Dunkin' Donuts has not responded to the claim and asked a judge's permission to take until Aug. 30 to respond to the complaints. An initial hearing is set for Sept. 9. A spokesman for the company said it was "unable to comment at this time due to pending litigation." Dunkin' Donuts items billed as containing blueberries are sold at a premium, and the people suing would not have bought them, or would have paid less, with the knowledge they did not actually have blueberries, according to the suit. Nutritional information regarding the pastries' ingredients is not displayed along with the items, and marketing materials often depict real blueberries side-by-side with the products, which mislead consumers, the suit charges. Among the allegations is that the imitation blueberries used in Dunkin' Donuts products are "inferior" to the real thing, which can provide health benefits. "Blueberries have the potential to limit the development and severity of certain cancers and vascular diseases, including atherosclerosis, ischemic stroke, and neurodegenerative diseases of aging," the suit contends. "Research suggests that blueberries are one of the richest sources of antioxidant phytonutrients." Instead, the products contain sugar and corn syrup, gums and artificial food coloring, "blueberry flavored bits" and "flavor crystals" to mimic the fruit, the suit claims. "Even when consuming the blueberry products, plaintiff and other consumers cannot easily decipher whether the filling or glazing they are consuming contains actual blueberries because defendant has formulated and manufactured the products in a manner that masks the absence of such ingredients," according to the complaint. The suit seeks more than $5 million in damages, restitution and court fees, plus validation of its claims for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, common law fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Mr. Grabowski is being represented by James X. Bormes and Catherine P. Sons of the Law Office of James X. Bormes and Thomas M. Ryan of the Law Office of Thomas M. Ryan. None were available for immediate comment. Mr. Grabowski's lawyers argued other items at Dunkin' Donuts, like strawberry doughnuts and "apple crumb"-flavored pastries, did have real fruit as advertised. Therefore, the breakfast chain "was not only capable of formulating and manufacturing the blueberry products to include blueberry, but also was, or should have been, aware that the blueberry products did not contain blueberry and that its representations would deceive unsuspecting consumers," the suit says. Earlier this year, Dunkin' Donuts was hit with lawsuits that also complained its products did not contain the natural flavors its pastries claimed -- such as blueberries, maple and butter. [GN] DUPONT FABROS: Oct. 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid ----------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Aug. 7 disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of holders of DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc. ("DuPont Fabros") common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of DuPont Fabros by Digital Realty Trust, Inc. and its affiliates ("Digital Realty") announced on June 9, 2017 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against DuPont Fabros, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Digital Realty, is captioned Scarantino v. DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv- 01428 (D.D.C.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl- legal.com; or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/. On June 8, 2017, DuPont Fabros entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Digital Realty. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, each share of DuPont Fabros common stock will be converted into the right to receive 0.545 shares of Digital Realty common stock, and each share of 6.625% DuPont Fabros Series C preferred stock will be converted into the right to receive one share of a newly designated class of preferred stock of Digital Realty with substantially similar rights, privileges, and preferences as the DuPont Fabros Series C preferred stock (the "Proposed Transaction"). Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4 Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2017. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement, which recommends that DuPont Fabros stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with respect to DuPont Fabros' financial projections, the analyses performed by DuPont Fabros' financial advisor, and potential conflicts of interest. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of DuPont Fabros' common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 6, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in state and federal courts throughout the United States. [GN] ECLIPSE AVIATION: 3rd Cir. Tosses Class Suit over Abrupt Layoffs ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned In re: AE LIQUIDATION, INC., ET AL, Debtors. ANNETTE VARELA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; JOHN J. DIMURA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. AE LIQUIDATION, INC., ET AL, f/k/a ECLIPSE AVIATION CORPORATION, No. 16-2203(3d. Cir.), Judge Cheryl Ann Krause of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the judgment of the District Court affirming a bankruptcy court decision. This case arises from the bankruptcy and subsequent closing of a jet aircraft manufacturer. Eclipse's employees filed the class action complaint that gave rise to this appeal -- an adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court alleging that Eclipse's failure to give them 60 days' notice prior to the layoff violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"). After discovery, the employees moved for partial summary judgment, asserting that Eclipse could invoke neither the Act's "faltering company" exception, nor its "unforeseeable business circumstances" exception to excuse its lack of notice, and Eclipse filed a cross- motion for summary judgment, contending that the "unforeseeable business circumstances" exception barred WARN Act liability. The Bankruptcy Court agreed with Eclipse and granted summary judgment in its favor. The District Court affirmed on appeal, and the matter was elevated to the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit is required to assess that manufacturer's obligation under the WARN Act, to give fair warning to its employees before effecting a mass layoff. On appeal, it is asked to determine whether a business must notify its employees of a pending layoff once the layoff becomes probable -- that is, more likely than not -- or if the mere foreseeable possibility that a layoff may occur is enough to trigger the WARN Act's notice requirements. The Appellants contend that Eclipse has not met its burden of demonstrating that the unforeseeable business circumstances exception applies for three reasons. The argue, as a threshold matter, that Eclipse is ineligible for the exception because, even after the fact, it never provided its employees with proper notice of their termination. They also contend that Eclipse cannot show that the purported unforeseeable business circumstance -- its failure to close its proposed sale to European Technology and Investment Research Center ("ETIRC") -- was, in fact, the cause of the mass layoff. They further assert that, even if the failure to close the sale was the cause of the layoff, the exception still would not apply because the failure to close was not "unforeseeable" but rather could have been anticipated at many points in the 60-day window prior to the layoff. The Appeals Court perceives no deficiency in Eclipse's notice and perceives no dispute of material fact as to whether the notice's contents or method of delivery violated the WARN Act. To the question of whether Eclipse may excuse its failure to provide notice at an earlier date by relying on the unforeseeable business circumstances defense, the Court finds that the record supports the presumption that Eclipse's employees would have retained their jobs had the sale been finalized. The District Court thus did not err in concluding as a matter of law that the failure to obtain financing for that sale was the cause of the layoff. The Appeals Court explains that companies in financial distress will frequently be forced to make difficult choices on how best to proceed, and those decisions will almost always involve the possibility of layoffs if they do not pan out exactly as planned. When the possibility of a layoff -- while present -- is not the more likely outcome, any premature warning has the potential to accelerate a company's demise and necessitate layoffs that otherwise may have been avoided. Thus, the Court joins the many courts that have held this is not the burden the WARN Act was meant to impose and that a layoff becomes reasonably foreseeable only when it becomes more likely than not that it will occur. Because the Appeals Court concludes that a probability of layoffs is necessary, and the manufacturer has demonstrated that its closing was not probable until the day that it occurred, it cannot be held liable for its failure to give its employees requisite notice. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court, which in turn affirmed the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/ujW32i from Leagle.com. Christopher D. Loizides, Loizides, 1225 King Street, Suite 800, Wilmington, DE 19801. Jack A. Raisner -- jar@outtengolden.com -- (Argued), Rene S. Roupinian -- RSR@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden, 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Counsel for Appellants. Mark E. Felger -- mfelger@cozen.com -- Barry M. Klayman -- bklayman@cozen.com -- (Argued), Cozen O'Connor, 1201 North Market Street, Suite 1001, Wilmington, DE 1801, Counsel for Appellee. EDUCAP INC: Quick, et al. Seek to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DEWAINE QUICK, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. EDUCAP, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01242-APM (D.D.C.), Dewaine Quick and Lynn Davis move the Court to certify a class. The case was filed June 26 and alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Judge Amit P Mehta presides over the case. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mzknONqC The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dean Gregory, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DEAN GREGORY 1717 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 905 8058 Facsimile: (202) 776 0136 E-mail: dean@deangregory.com EGS FINANCIAL: Galli Files Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EGS Financial Care, Inc. The case is styled as Brian E. Galli and Edwin Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EGS Financial Care, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17- cv-04630 (E.D. N.Y., August 7, 2017). Defendant EGS Financial Care, Inc. is a company that purchases consumer debts and collecting thereon from Debtors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Narrows Claims in "Davis" Likenesses Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment in the case captioned MICHAEL E. DAVIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., Defendant, Case No. 10-cv- 03328-RS(N.D. Cal.). The Named Plaintiffs in this putative class action are former National Football League players who contend that Defendant EA has misappropriated their likenesses and rights of publicity through marketing and selling the popular "Madden NFL" series of video games. Those games undisputedly use likenesses of active NFL players, which EA has licensed through the NFL Players' Association. Although EA vigorously contends the games do not use former players' likenesses, there is no question that any such use is unlicensed. The motion for partial summary judgment brought by EA presents a narrow question on whether the Plaintiffs have a viable statutory claim under California Civil Code Section 3344. Judge Seeborg held that the Plaintiffs have not shown, and cannot show, that any of the visual images of players in the Madden games -- the avatars -- would ever be "readily identifiable" as any specific retired NFL player absent additional contextual information. Because controlling precedent requires such a showing for claims under section 3344, the Defendants' motion must be granted. Subsequent to the hearing on the motion, the Plaintiffs were granted leave to submit additional briefing regarding points they contended had emerged through further discovery. Judge Seeborg noted that the briefing -- rather than focusing on any newly discovered facts and new testimony -- largely reiterated the Plaintiffs' prior arguments that they need not show the visual appearances of the avatars render them identifiable. They are relying on additional contextual information that goes beyond the elements of a "likeness" in a statutory claim. However, no genuine issue of material fact as to the "degree of resemblance" exists upon comparison of the relevant aspects of the appearance of the avatars to the appearance of the Plaintiffs. Any questions the Plaintiffs may have raised as to possible evidentiary discrepancies in the details of how particular avatars are selected for use in the historical games do not alter the fundamental fact that the resulting avatars are not readily identifiable as the Plaintiffs, absent consideration of information that does not come within a statutory "likeness." Therefore, Judge Seeborg granted EA's motion for partial summary judgment. The final judgment in this action will include judgment in EA's favor on the Plaintiffs' claims under section 3344. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/4MTJT1 from Leagle.com. Michael E. Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Austin P. Tighe, Jr. - - austin@feazell-tighe.com -- Feazell & Tighe LLP. Michael E. Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Douglas Henri -- brianhenri@henrilg.com -- Henri Law Group, Michael Irwin Katz - - mkatz@ggtriallaw.com -- Greenberg Gross LLP & Sony Broto Barari -- sbarari@bzbm.com -- Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller. Vince Ferragamo, Plaintiff, represented by Austin P. Tighe, Jr., Feazell & Tighe LLP, Brian Douglas Henri, Henri Law Group, Michael Irwin Katz, Greenberg Gross LLP & Sony Broto Barari, Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller. Billy Joe Dupree, Plaintiff, represented by Austin P. Tighe, Jr., Feazell & Tighe LLP, Brian Douglas Henri, Henri Law Group, Michael Irwin Katz, Greenberg Gross LLP & Sony Broto Barari, Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller. Samuel Michael Keller, Plaintiff, represented by Leonard W. Aragon -- leonard@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Electronic Arts Inc., Defendant, represented by R. James Slaughter -- rslaughter@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Joseph Taylor Gooch -- tgooch@keker.com -- Keker and Van Nest LLP, Nicholas David Marais -- nmarais@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Robert Adam Lauridsen -- alauridsen@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP. ESTATE INFORMATION: Faces "Riley" Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Estate Information Services, LLC. The case is styled as Renee Riley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Estate Information Services, LLC doing business as: EIS Collections, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04685 (E.D. N.Y., August 9, 2017). Estate Information Services, LLC specializes in the collection of deceased debt and specialty recovery functions for creditors in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com EXPRESS SERVICE: "Stoddart" Case Discovery Cutoff Moved to Nov. 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery deadline for additional 90 days in the case captioned MICHAEL H. STODDART, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EXPRESS SERVICES, et al., Defendants, No. 2:12-cv-01054-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff, who formerly worked for Express Services in Vallejo, California, now alleges Express Services systematically violated employment laws by not providing legally mandated off- duty meal periods or paying all wages owed to current and former employees. In early 2012, the Plaintiff brought a putative class action against all three Named Defendants in state court for damages and injunctive relief. A month later, Express Services removed the case to the Court. After several dismissal motions and complaint amendments, the Court issued the operative scheduling order on Aug. 4, 2016, in which class certification discovery was to close on April 7, 2017. On March 9, 2017, the parties jointly requested an extension of class certification discovery for 120 days. The Court granted the request, extending the deadline to Aug. 7, 2017. After the court granted this stipulated extension, the parties scheduled private mediation for Sept. 27, 2017. In light of the upcoming mediation, the Plaintiff now seeks to extend the certification discovery deadline for another 90 days, to Nov. 5, 2017. No trial has yet been scheduled. The Defendants oppose, arguing plaintiff lacks good cause for another discovery extension. The Plaintiff argues good cause exists to move the discovery cutoff date beyond Aug. 7, 2017, because that date was set before the parties had agreed to a Sept. 27, 2017 private mediation date. The Defendants argue the Plaintiff can easily complete certification discovery by the current cutoff. Judge Mueller finds that the Plaintiff has acted reasonably diligently throughout discovery, and the Defendants have not shown that the Plaintiff's request will cause prejudice or that they themselves were not complicit in the discovery delays to date. She also finds that the Plaintiff's discovery extension request is simple, and both sides agree the Plaintiff called to discuss the request generally, and the Defendants rejected it out of hand. Thus, the Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. Accordingly, Judge Mueller granted the Plaintiff's motion and extended the class certification discovery cutoff for 90 days from Aug. 7 to Nov. 5. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/Hvqf1N from Leagle.com. Michael H. Stoddart, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey Drew La Val -- glaval@grahamhollis.com -- Graham Hollis APC. Michael H. Stoddart, Plaintiff, represented by Janine Renee Menhennet -- janetgrumer@dwt.com Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Jeff Geraci, Cohelan Khoury and Singer, Michael D. Singer, Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Graham S.P. Hollis -- ghollis@grahamhollis.com -- GrahamHollis, APC & Marta Manus -- mmanus@grahamhollis.com -- GrahamHollis A.P.C.. Express Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron N. Colby - - aaroncolby@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Morgan Patricia Forsey -- mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton, Nora K. Stiles -- nstilestein@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton, Elizabeth Scott Wood -- elizabeth.wood@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft, APC, pro hac vice, Janet Lynn Grumer, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Jason W. Kearnaghan -- jkearnaghan@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP & Richard J. Simmons -- rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Phillips & Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by Janet Lynn Grumer, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Jason W. Kearnaghan, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Morgan Patricia Forsey, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton, Nora K. Stiles, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton, Richard J. Simmons, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Aaron N. Colby, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. Western Wine Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas G.A. Johnston, Jackson Lewis P.C., Fraser Angus McAlpine -- McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Scott Christopher Lacunza -- LacunzaS@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. FAY SERVICING: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled CRISTINA ORTIZ, on behalf of plaintiffs and a class, the Plaintiffs, v. FAY SERVICING, LLC, doing business as FAY MORTGAGE SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05795 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of: "(a) all individuals in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin (b) to whom Fay Servicing, LLC sent a "validation notice" (c) which failed to include amounts owed for escrow, unpaid accrued interest, late charges and/or NSF charges, (d) on a residential mortgage (e) that was in default when Fay Servicing, LLC obtained the loan, (f) which letter was sent at any time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 21 days after the filing of this action". The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. The Plaintiffs brought this case against Defendant alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oLLE03k4 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Tara L. Goodwin, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 FHI LLC: Faces "Orelus" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- AMSLEY ORELUS, on his own behalf and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FHI, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company, FREIGHT HANDLERS, INC., a North Carolina corporation, and CHARLES WALL, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-61431-KMM (July 19, 2017), alleges that Defendants failed to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act, in that Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees performed services for Defendants for which no provisions were made by the Defendants to properly pay them for those hours worked in excess of forty (40) within a work week. Defendants provide logistics and distribution services to various retailers across the United States. Defendants employ Plaintiff as "Handler."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 Federal Hwy, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Fax: (561) 447-8831 Email: ciones@shavitzlaw.com - and - Donald A. Yarbrough, Esq. P.O Box 11842 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33339 Phone: 954-566-2000 Fax: 954-537-2235 Email: don@donyarbroygh.com FIRST ADVANTAGE: "Bankhead" Suit Transferred to N.D. of Ga. ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Latonya T. Bankhead, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. First Advantage Background Services Corp., Defendant, Case No. 2017cv291753, was removed from the Superior Court of Fulton County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on August 2, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-02910-LMM-JCF to the proceeding. The case is assigned to District Judge Leigh Martin May. The Defendant is a consumer reporting agency with its principal place of business in Atlanta Georgia. It is regularly engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and disbursing consumer information reports to third parties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Berger & Montague, P.C.-MN 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Tel: (612) 594-5999 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: emdrake@bm.net - and - Gary B. Andrews, Jr., Esq. Blake Andrews Law Firm, LLC 1831 Timothy Dr. Atlanta, GA 30329 Tel: (770) 828-6225 Email: blake@blakeandrewslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Edward Patrick Cadagin, Esq. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP-ATL 171 17th Street, NW, Suite 2100 Atlanta, GA 30363-1031 Tel: (404) 873-8500 Email: edward.cadagin@agg.com - and - Henry R. Chalmers, Esq. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP-ATL 171 17th Street, NW, Suite 2100 Atlanta, GA 30363-1031 Tel: (404) 873-8646 Email: henry.chalmers@agg.com FLORIDA: Davis Sues Dept. of Corrections Over Prison Policy ----------------------------------------------------------- MARK DAVIS, MARK GERALDS, JESSE GUARDADO, JOSEPH JORDAN, KHALID PASHA, ROBERT RIMMER, JOHN TROY, STEVEN STEIN, and GARY WHITTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JULIE JONES, KEVIN JORDAN, and BARRY REDDISH, in their official capacities as employees of the Florida Department of Corrections, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00820-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla., July 19, 2017), seeks to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief from an alleged unconstitutional Florida Department of Corrections policy that automatically places Florida prisoners sentenced to death in a permanently solitary confinement, regardless of their behavior while incarcerated. According to the case, the FDOC has held Plaintiffs in permanent solitary confinement, called "single-cell special housing," for between 4 and 30 years, an unconscionably long period of time. The FDOC's policy of automatic, indefinite solitary confinement for death row inmates is extremely debilitating, and inhumane, violates contemporary standards of decency, and poses an unreasonable risk of serious harm to the health and safety of Plaintiffs and class members, says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Linda McDermott, Esq. Martin J. McClain, Esq. MCLAIN & MCDERMOTT P.A. 141 NE 30th Street, Wilton Manors, FL 33334-1064 Phone: (850) 322-2172 Fax: (954) 564-5412 Email: Lindamcdermott@msn.com - and - Seth A. Rosenthal, Esq. Claire Wheeler, Esq. VENABLE LLP Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 653-3750 Fax: (202) 344-8300 Email: Sarosenthal@venable.com Email: Cmwheeler@venable.com - and - Maggie T. Grace, Esq. Matthew T. Shea, Esq. VENABLE LLP 750 E. Pratt Street, Suite 900 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: (410) 244-7400 Fax: (410) 244-7742 Email: Mtgrace@venable.com Email: Mtshea@venable.com FMS INVESTMENT: Faces "McKenna" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against FMS Investment Corp. The case is styled as Kathleen McKenna, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FMS Investment Corp., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04628 (E.D. N.Y., August 7, 2017). FMS Investment Corp. is a Maryland corporation that provides receivables management solutions to financial service institutions in the government and private sector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com FORT WAYNE, IN: Original Motion to Certify Class Declared as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ROLANDO JORDAN, RONALD WARD, and KENNETH ROLLINGCLOUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,, the Plaintiffs, v. DAVID GLADIEUX, ALAN COOK, and CHARLES HART, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00335-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Theresa L. Springmann entered an order declaring original motion to certify class as moot. The Court said, "On March 17, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their First amended motion for class certification. Because the Plaintiffs have filed an amended Motion, the original motion to certify class is now moot". In September 2016, Plaintiffs asked the Court to certify the class as defined in their action alleging unlawful and unconstitutional religious discrimination against inmates practicing Muslim and traditional Native American faiths at the Allen County Jail in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Plaintiffs proposed this class: "All individuals held at the Allen County Jail between October 2014 and September 2016 practicing a Muslim or traditional Native American faith who have been forbidden from engaging in Muslim or traditional Native American communal worship and/or have been forbidden from keeping an article of Muslim or traditional Native American religious devotion." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oeo5ezvU FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Lilavois" Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC. The case is styled as Regine Lilavois, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04631 (E.D.N.Y., August 7, 2017). Frontline Asset is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C. 337 Avenue W, Suite 2f Brooklyn, NY 11223 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com FULL CITIZENSHIP MD: Craighead May File Amended Suit, Court Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in the case captioned TALIA CRAIGHEAD, Plaintiff, v. FULL CITIZENSHIP OF MARYLAND, INC. Defendant, Civil Action No. PX 17-595(D. Md.). On March 3, 2017, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of similarly situated putative class members, filed a class action against the Defendant, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); the Maryland Wage and Hour Law; and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, as well as injunctive relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 217. The Defendant has answered the complaint and discovery pertinent to class certification is underway. On June 29, 2017, the Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, she seeks to add named Plaintiffs to ensure that the class is adequately represented by a number of typical class members. She also seeks to clarify the basis for federal jurisdiction under the FLSA and the Class Action Fairness Act, codified in relevant part at 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The Plaintiff also proposes to add class allegations covering those individuals who were not paid the legal minimum wage in any one work week. Finally, she would add Pansy Stancil-Diaz as a named Defendant because she has allegedly exerted personal control over and responsibility for the unlawful pay practices. The Plaintiff avers that she only recently learned of the factual bases supporting the proposed amendments. With regard to adding the minimum wage claims, Judge Xinis says they are certainly related to the underlying class complaint in that they involve the same institutional defendant, the same time frame, and the same basic state law framework as the other state claims. Any possible prejudice may be cured by a reasonable enlargement of time in the scheduling order to accommodate discovery on the new claims. Given that the claims are sufficiently related enough to permit amendment, to do otherwise would appear wasteful and unnecessary. Similarly, with regard to joining Stancil-Diaz, the Defendant has not marshalled sufficient evidence of prejudice to warrant denial of amendment. Accordingly, Judge Xinis granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. She directed the clerk to detach and file the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and transmit copies of her Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/7U5jaX from Leagle.com. Talia Craighead, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Philip Tucker -- jt@dcwagelaw.com -- Law Office of Justin Zelikovitz, PLLC. Talia Craighead, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Brooks -- mb@outtengolden.com -- Outten and Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Sally J. Abrahamson -- sabrahamson@outtengolden.com -- Outten and Golden LLP, pro hac vice & Justin Zelikovitz -- justin@dcwagelaw.com -- DCWAGELAW. Vernesha Hutchinson, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Philip Tucker, Law Office of Justin Zelikovitz, PLLC, Molly Brooks, Outten and Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Sally J. Abrahamson, Outten and Golden LLP, pro hac vice & Justin Zelikovitz, DCWAGELAW. Vernice Headen, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Philip Tucker, Law Office of Justin Zelikovitz, PLLC, Molly Brooks, Outten and Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Sally J. Abrahamson, Outten and Golden LLP, pro hac vice & Justin Zelikovitz, DCWAGELAW. Pamela Omar Ransom, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Philip Tucker, Law Office of Justin Zelikovitz, PLLC, Molly Brooks, Outten and Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Sally J. Abrahamson, Outten and Golden LLP, pro hac vice & Justin Zelikovitz, DCWAGELAW. Full Citizenship of Maryland, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tamara B. Goorevitz -- tgoorevitz@fandpnet.com -- Franklin and Prokopik PC. GEICO INDEMNITY: Bid to Certify Class Taken under Submission ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned Geoffrey Starks, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Geico Indemnity Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-05771- MWF-PJW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald Entered an order taking Geico's motion for leave to file amended answer to add affirmative defense, Geico's motion for summary judgment as to second amended complaint, and Plaintiffs' motion to certify class under submission. The Courtroom Deputy Clerk issues the Court's tentative ruling, prior to the hearing. Case called, and counsel make their appearance. The Court takes the matter under submission. An order will issue, according to the Civil Minutes. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VhLsBIIg The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. Beverly Hills, CA Telephone: (323) 285 3255 The Defendants are represented by: Brian M Jazaeri, Esq. Esther K. Ro Esq. 300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612 7333 Facsimile: (213) 612 2501 E-mail: brian.jazaeri@morganlewis.com GENWORTH LIFE: Accused by Avazian of Improperly Lapsing Insurance ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR AVAZIAN, an individual, MICHAEL A. TORRES, in his capacity as trustee of the Julio M. Torres 2012 Insurance Trust DTD, and others similarly situated v. GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. BC671240 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 4, 2017), alleges that by violating California law, Genworth has improperly lapsed countless numbers of life insurance policies, saving the Company untold sums by retaining premiums on policies the Company will never pay out on. The Plaintiffs state that they bring the purported class action lawsuit because Genworth has knowingly and repeatedly failed to comply with a California statutory scheme that seeks to safeguard consumers' life insurance coverage by requiring insurers to observe clearly defined notice procedures before terminating coverage for nonpayment of premium. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Virginia and is authorized to transact and is transacting the business of insurance in the state of California. Genworth offers annuity and life insurance underwriting services in the United States. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiffs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William M. Shernoff, Esq. Samuel L. Bruchey, Esq. SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA LLP 301 N. Canon Drive, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 246-0503 Facsimile: (310) 246-0380 E-mail: wshernoff@shernoff.com sbruchey@shernoff.com GROSS POLOWY: "Carbone" Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL K. CARBONE and JANINE CARBONE, on behalf of plaintiffs and a class, the Plaintiffs, v. GROSS POLOWY LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04564 (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order determining that a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action may proceed as a class action against Gross Polowy LLC. The Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes, defined as: "(a) all natural persons (b) whose correspondence address, according to the records of GPLCC, is the same as the property address, (c) which property contains one or two dwelling units (including condominium and cooperative apartments), (d) to whom GPLLC sent a letter referring to mortgage company "vs." homeowner or "foreclosure action" or "foreclosure sale" when no legal proceeding was pending, (e) which letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action, and on or before a date 21 days after the filing of this action"; and "(a) all natural persons (b) whose correspondence address, according to the records of GPLCC, is the same as the property address, (c) which property contains one or two dwelling units (including condominium and cooperative apartments), (d) with whom GPLLC communicated (e) without sending a "notice of debt" described in section 1692g prior to or within 5 days after the communication (f) where the first communication occurred on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action, and on or before a date 21 days after the filing of this action. Plaintiffs further request that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC and Kleinman LLC be appointed counsel for the class". The Plaintiffs further asks the Court that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC and Kleinman LLC be appointed counsel for the class. This case involves GPLLC's attempt to collect a residential mortgage loan debt from plaintiffs. The loan is secured by plaintiffs' residence and was obtained for personal, family or household purposes, namely housing. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KBCS40M5 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Abraham Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN, LLC 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, New York 11556-0626 Telephone: (516) 522 2621 Facsimile: (888) 522 1692 - and - Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603-3593 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 GUARDIAN PROTECTION: "Danganan" Suit Transferred to Penn. S.C. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Jobe Danganan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Appellants v. Guardian Protection Services and United States Court of Appeals For The Third Circuit, Appellee, Case No. 44 WM 2017 was transferred from the U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on August 8, 2017, and assigned Case No. 36-WAP-2017 to the proceeding. The Guardian Protection Services operate a residential and commercial security and safety solution company that specializes in the design, installation, service and monitoring of security and fire monitoring systems.[BN] The Appellees are represented by: Iannucci, Michael Anthony, Esq. Blank Rome One Logan Square 130 North 18th St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 - and - Vendzules, Laura Elizabeth, Esq. Blank Rome, LLP One Logan Square Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998 Tel: (215) 569-5500 - and - John Patrick Wixted, Esq. Blank Rome LLP 130 N 18TH St Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998 Tel: (215) 569-5500 - and - Patricia S. Dodszuweit, Esq. U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 601 Market St Philadelphia, PA 19106-1723 Tel: (267) 299-4903 - and - Amy Joseph Coles, Esq. Blank Rome LLP 500 Grant St Ste 2900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Tel: (215) 569-5500 The Appellant is represented by: Michael D. Donovan, Esq. Donovan Litigation Group LLC 15 St Asaphs Rd BalaCynwyd, PA 19004 Tel: (610) 647-6067 - and - James Pietz, Esq. Feinstein Doyle Payne &KravecLlc 429 Forbes Ave Ste 1705 Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1612 Tel: (412) 281-8400 HIGHVELD SYNDICATION: Georgiou Seeks to Appeal Judgment ------------------------------------------------------- Ryk van Niekerk, writing for Moneyweb, reports that sparks flew in the North Gauteng High Court in property magnate Nic Georgiou's application for leave to appeal against a May judgment that found his conduct to be unethical and an attempt to abuse the court process. Helgard Hancke, a former member of the Highveld Syndication Action Group (HSAG) who now assists investors with settling their claims directly with Mr. Georgiou, submitted an explosive affidavit as part of his application to become an intervening party to the proceedings. In this affidavit, Mr. Hancke alleges that some facts in HSAG lawyer Jacques Theron of T&V's original affidavit, which the courts relied upon, were false and that he did not act in the best interest of investors. This challenges information Mr. Theron put before the court in his original application and on which the judgment was based. Mr. Theron denied these allegations but is yet to file a responding affidavit under oath. The application for leave to appeal follows a judgment in May, which was critical of Mr. Georgiou's conduct to secretly settle the claims of the applicants who represented around 7 000 HSAG members in their quest to institute a class action against Mr. Georgiou. The settlements were dependent on the condition that they withdraw their application for certification for the class action, which would effectively bring an end to the class action application. A similar judgment was delivered for the other three applicants in the South Gauteng High Court. Helgard Hancke's affidavit In his affidavit Mr. Hancke alleged that Johan Stander, a longstanding HSAG executive member, and Mr. Theron demanded a commission of 1% on all the settlements they negotiated on behalf of HSAG investors with Georgiou. "I am aware that Theron requested a commission of 1% of the settlement reached on behalf of any investor and Georgiou. I assume it is for this reason that the applicants settled their claims with Georgiou directly and that they did not pursue their claims through the channels and the system made available by Theron." In a subsequent interview with Moneyweb, Mr. Hancke said Mr. Georgiou refused to pay the 1% commission and the claims of around 800 HSAG who were keen to settle, were not settled. Mr. Hancke also recalls "a specific meeting in Benoni, secretly arranged by Stander and Theron with Mr. Georgiou, where Mr. Theron proposed a commission of R25 million from Mr. Georgiou in order to settle the class action. These claims later escalated to as much as R66 million." Mr. Hancke added that the class action application was extremely lucrative for Mr. Theron and that it was in his best interest that it continued. "I recall mention being made of contributions of up to R15 million in just three years, however Theron refused to furnish audited financial statements of his trust account." His office claims it is confidential information. This was also disputed by Elna Visagie, another former member of the HSAG and currently in the employment of Georgiou, in a supporting affidavit to Mr. Hancke's affidavit. She confirmed Mr. Hancke's contention that Mr. Theron sought a 1% commission on settlements he negotiated. She attached a copy of a handwritten note, which was apparently "supplied" by Stander to Georgiou in March 2017 "whereby (the) HSAG claimed a further 1% negotiators fee together with the administrative fees and legal fees that were already paid by the investors -- totalling an amount of R66 million." Charlene Jordaan In another development, Charlene Jordaan, one of the four HSAG members who Georgiou apparently approached in secret and settled her claim, also tried to submit an affidavit, but this was disallowed by the judge. In this affidavit however, she also denied Mr. Theron's version of events, especially the statement that Georgiou secretly approached her for settlement and that the six applicants didn't know each other. Ms. Visagie also disputed this in her affidavit. Ms. Jordaan states that she instructed Mr. Theron to settle her claim with Mr. Georgiou, but that he failed to do so. Ms. Jordaan then approached Mr. Georgiou directly after her claim was settled, as well as those of the other applicants. "The settlement agreements (which I was advised had been negotiated and indeed prepared by Theron) were never signed previously as Theron was insisting upon being paid a settlement commission, which Georgiou refused to pay." Ms. Jordaan and Ms. Visagie also denied Mr. Theron's claim that the applicants did not know each other. They both stated that the applicants and Theron were members of a WhatsApp group. Theron responds Mr. Theron strongly denied the allegations and said the application for leave to appeal did not address the merits of the case. "The facts are that Georgiou secretly paid an unknown amount of money to the applicants to settle their claims, with the condition that they would withdraw their application for class action certification." Mr. Georgiou strongly denied this and alleged that the applicants approached him for settlement. Mr. Theron said Mr. Hancke was waging a smear campaign against the HSAG and himself after Georgiou secretly settled a family member's claim and after Mr. Hancke was asked to resign from the HSAG steering committee. Mr. Theron also strongly denied he ever demanded a 1% commission to settle claims. "This allegation is totally false. The additional allegation that my demand for this commission delayed or derailed settlement negotiations is a further blatant lie." Mr. Theron said the settlement agreement the HSAG negotiated and signed with Georgiou, and which was attached to his replying affidavit, did not contain any reference to a commission. Regarding Mr. Hancke's claim that T&V's fees were exorbitant, Mr. Theron said his fees were in accordance with guidelines of the law society and that he would provide a full account of his trust account at the conclusion of the case. He said he could not disclose this now, as this was sensitive information Georgiou could use against the HSAG's application by adapting his tactics and litigation strategy, depending on his knowledge of the HSAG's financial strength. He also said many investors were not fully paid up. Mr. Theron said he did not respond to Mr. Hancke's allegations prior to the hearing as his affidavit was filed the previous day. "I just did not have time to respond. Due to the irrelevance of Hancke's allegations it was decided to argue the case without filing an answering affidavit." Mr. Theron indicated that he would most definitely file a responding affidavit when the case in Johannesburg is heard in September. Smear campaign Mr. Theron said these allegations form part of a campaign to defame him and to diminish the support of the class action. "Georgiou has not produced one e-mail or communication that proves these amounts have been raised or commission demanded." Mr. Theron maintained that the applicants didn't know each other. "The applicants were randomly selected to represent the HSAG members and live all around the country. There was a WhatsApp group, but this group was not very active . . . They (the applicants) were obviously aware of each other, but I would be very surprised if they ever met before they colluded with Georgiou in 2016 to withdraw the court actions." Mr. Theron also denied that Ms. Jordaan ever instructed him to settle her claim. [GN] HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Background Checks ----------------------------------------------------- Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports that a putative class of job applicants hit Home Depot USA Inc. with a lawsuit in California federal court on Aug. 4, alleging the home improvement retail chain violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by including unlawful waivers in background check consent forms. The suit alleges the background checks were unauthorized because the consent forms that supposedly authorized them included a liability waiver, and under the FCRA, valid background and credit check releases can't contain extraneous information and must consist "solely of the disclosure." The release language also flouts the Federal Trade Commission's "unambiguous regulatory guidance" against such liability waivers, according to the lawsuit. "The violations of the FCRA were willful," the complaint says. "Defendant knew that its background check disclosure and authorization forms should not include extraneous information that is prohibited by the FCRA, and acted in deliberate disregard of its obligations and the rights of Plaintiff and other class members." The suit was filed by Katherine Saltzberg, who says she signed the consent form when she applied to work for Lifetime Solutions Inc., a third-party water treatment company that offers services to Home Depot customers. Ms. Saltzberg says she had to sign the waiver as a condition of the background check, which was part of the employment application process. Ms. Saltzberg says the waiver was illegal and rendered the authorization improper. She seeks to represent a nationwide class of job applicants who signed background check disclosure form in the last five years. The statutory fines associated with the FCRA range from $100 to $1,000 per violation, and the suit brings two claims under the FCRA, one for failing to make a proper disclosure and another for failing to obtain proper authorization. Ms. Saltzberg also seeks punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Attorneys for the class and representatives for Home Depot did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Aug. 7. The job applicants are represented by Norman B. Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawca.com -- Kyle R. Nordrehaug -- kyle@bamlawca.com -- and Aparajit Bhowmik -- aj@bamlawca.com -- of Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik LLP. Counsel information for Home Depot was not immediately available. The case is Katherine Saltzberg et al. v. Home Depot USA Inc., case number 2:17-cv-05798, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] INTEGRATED MEDIA: Brite Bite Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled BRITE BITE DENTAL, PC, an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. INTEGRATED MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC and DENTAL PRODUCT SHOPPER, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05738 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certifying a class of: "each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone facsimile messages after August 7, 2013 offering the Dental Product Shopper publication". To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6t9VxdCi The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. David. M. Oppenheim, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658 5500 Facsimile: (312) 658 5555 INTERSTATE CLEANING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Chavez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JESUS CHAVEZ, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants v. INTERSTATE CLEANING CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC671120 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 4, 2017), accuses the Defendants of failure to provide all required meal and rest periods, to pay minimum and straight time wages, and to pay overtime wages, among other failures. ICC is a corporation authorized to conduct business, and actually conducts business, in the state of California, in the County of Los Angeles. ICC operates as a facility cleaning firm. The Company offers building cleaning and maintenance services. The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the persons or entities sued herein Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Farzad Rastegar, Esq. Thomas S. Campbell, Esq. RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC 22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 961-9600 Facsimile: (310) 961-9094 E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com tom@rastegarlawgroup.com INVICTA WATCH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Felice" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JON B. FELICE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INVICTA WATCH COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-62772- RLR (S.D. Fla.). One of Invicta's product lines is the Pro Diver Series, which are available in various different models. These watches are represented by Invicta to be suitable for scuba diving, marine activity, and surface water sports. Both in marketing materials and on the watches themselves, the Pro Diver Watches are represented to be water resistant from 50 meters to 300 meters. Plaintiff Felice alleges, however, that Pro Diver Watches are prone to various defects that make them unsuitable for diving, water-related activities, and in non-marine, light use situations. According to the Complaint, each Pro Diver Watch is accompanied by an International Warranty Card and a Warranty Booklet. Although the terms of the Warranty materials that accompanied the Plaintiff's purchases were the same, in the Complaint and in the parties' briefing, it was revealed that there are multiple versions of warranties, including one attached to the Defendant's Motion, with different terms and conditions -- some of which are inconsistent and possibly confusing. The Plaintiff alleges that there are many public complaints, like his, that Invicta's Warranty terms are unfair and unconscionable as a result of disproportionate costs and fees, and numerous exclusions. The Plaintiff has asserted the following causes of action against the Defendant: (i) Violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"); (ii) Violation of Florida's Misleading Advertising Statute ("FMA"); (iii) Breach of Express Warranty; and (iv) Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"). Through the Motion filed on April 10, 2017, the Defendant requests that the Court dismiss all counts. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on May 1, 2017. As to FDUTPA claim, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's claims that Invicta misrepresented the Pro Diver Watch's suitability for diving and water-related activities and that it concealed known defects and engaged in an advertising campaign designed to entice consumers to purchase products known to be defective, are sufficient to set his FDUTPA claim apart from his breach of express warranty claim. The Plaintiff has articulated enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. As the Court already has noted, the Defendant mischaracterizes the Plaintiff's claim as to the representations made in Invicta's marketing and advertising. The Defendant's arguments for dismissal of the Plaintiff's FMA claim are similar to those made as to the Plaintiff's FDUTPA claim; i.e., that no reasonable person would believe that the watches were defect free and that the Plaintiff suffered no damages due to Invicta's Warranty repair and replace terms. Because these Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient, the Defendant is not entitled to dismissal of the Plaintiff's FMA claim. With respect to the breach of warranty claim, the Court, for pleading purposes, concludes that the Plaintiff's allegations satisfy each of the essential requirements for a claim for breach of express warranty. Invicta's Warranty does not serve as a de facto bar to a breach of express warranty claim premised on a product that fails to conform to its description. Moreover, the terms of its warranty are not relevant to the question of whether the Plaintiff has sufficiently plead a claim based on the Pro Diver Watch failing to conform to Invicta's express representations. The Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts demonstrating that Invicta's Warranty is unconscionable and will not dismiss on that basis. With respect to whether the Plaintiff was required to provide an opportunity to cure to Invicta, to the extent this issue is not resolved by the Court's conclusions, it defers any ruling on this issue until summary judgment. The Court will consider any further argument on this issue in the context of a developed evidentiary record that includes such information as whether the Plaintiff's watch was within the relevant warranty period. For these reasons, the Court denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/kjv1c5 from Leagle.com. Jon B. Felice, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey M. Norton -- jnorton@nfllp.com -- Newman Ferrara, LLP, pro hac vice. Jon B. Felice, Plaintiff, represented by Roger A. Sachar, Jr. -- rsachar@nfllp.com -- Newman Ferrara, LLP, pro hac vice & Christopher Stephen Polaszek -- chris@polaszeklaw.com -- The Polaszek Law Firm, PLLC. Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Glen H. Waldman -- gwaldman@waldmanbarnett.com -- Waldman Barnett, P.L. & Michael Sayre -- msayre@waldmanbarnett.com -- Waldman Barnett, P.L.. JAGUAR ANIMAL: Faces "Plant" Lawsuit Over Napo Pharma Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ TONY PLANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JAGUAR ANIMAL HEALTH, INC., JAMES J. BOCHNOWSKI, LISA CONTE, JIAHAO QIU, ZHI YANG, FOLKERT KAMPHUIS, JOHN MICEK III, and ARI AZHIR, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04102 (N.D. Cal., July 20, 2017), alleges violations of the Securities and Exchange Act in connection with the proposed merger between Jaguar and Napo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Defendants have issued a materially incomplete and misleading joint proxy statement/prospectus/information statement, says the complaint. Specifically, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the terms and details surrounding any alternative indications of interest the Company received from other companies or any information regarding a formal sales or merger process; (ii) the financial projections for both Jaguar and Napo; (iii) the financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated in support of its fairness opinion; (iv) potential conflicts of interest Stifel faced as a result of its historical dealings with either party and (v) actual Merger Consideration. JAGUAR ANIMAL HEALTH, INC. is an animal health company focused on developing and commercializing first-in-class gastrointestinal products for companion and production animals, foals, and high value horses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-971-1341 Fax: 212-202-7880 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com - and - David E. Bower, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC 600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170 Culver City, CA 90230 Phone: (310) 446-6652 Fax: (212) 202-7880 Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com JPMORGAN CHASE: $1.5M "Pacheco" Case Settlement Has Initial OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval of the class settlement and certified the proposed class for settlement purposes in the case captioned GLENN PACHECO, Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-05689-JD (N.D. Cal.). The complaint alleges that Chase collected the challenged mortgage payments in violation of Section 580d of the California Code of Civil Procedure and consequently violated California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, as well as California's Unfair Competition Law. The parties engaged in formal discovery, including written and data discovery as well as depositions. They participated in a series of settlement conferences before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, and reached a tentative settlement. After the settlement was finalized, Pacheco filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Under the proposed settlement agreement, Chase will pay $1,500,000 into a non-reversionary settlement fund that will fund payment to class members, the costs of notice and settlement administration, any Court-approved service awards, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. The gross settlement fund exceeds 100% of the potentially recoverable payments made by the settlement class to Chase, and none of it will ever revert to Chase. The settlement fund will be apportioned pro rata based upon the amount each settlement class member paid to Chase in connection with the allegedly unlawful mortgage collections. On average, class members are expected to receive approximately $3,576. The class members will automatically be mailed a check for their pro rata share of the settlement fund without filing a claim. The administrator will mail checks within 30 days of the effective date. Any checks that remain uncashed after 90 days will be voided, and their amounts will be allocated toward a second distribution, provided that at least $30,000 remains in the settlement fund. Any funds that remain after any second distribution will be distributed to a cy pres recipient, subject to Court approval. Pacheco requests that the Court conditionally certify, for settlement purposes only, the proposed class of California borrowers who (i) on or after Dec. 12, 2011, made payments to Chase on a junior mortgage following Chase's nonjudicial foreclosure of a senior mortgage secured by the same property; and (ii) are not members of the Banks settlement class. Judge Donato preliminarily approved the settlement. The Court appointed Garden City Group, LLC to administer the settlement at a maximum cost of $5,000. The deadline to mail the notice and to establish the notice website is Sept. 8, 2017. The opt-out and exclusion deadline is Oct. 20, 2017. The Plaintiffs are directed to file their motion for final approval, as well as any motion for attorneys' fees and costs and service awards, by Dec. 22, 2017. Any objections must be filed by Jan. 26, 2018. The final approval hearing is continued to Feb. 8, 2018. Judge Donato will decide at the final approval stage any attorneys' fees request and whether Pacheco will receive an incentive payment for service as the class representative, a practice that the Court has some concerns about, as stated in prior class settlement orders. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/hEGijS from Leagle.com. Glenn Pacheo, Plaintiff, represented by Tiffany Rochelle Norman -- tiffany@trnlaw.com -- TRN Law Associates. Glenn Pacheo, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Eric Loeser -- oml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Peter B. Fredman -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of Peter Fredman. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, Defendant, represented by Julia B. Strickland -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP & Benjamin Gary Diehl -- bdiehl@stroock.com -- Stroock Stroock Lavan LLP. KIA MOTORS: Consumers File Class Action Over Breach of Warranty --------------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that three consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against Kia Motors, alleging breach of warranty, design defect, negligence and product liability. Darla Campbell of California, Tristin Hibler of Texas and Michael Leppert of New Jersey filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated July 24 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Kia Motors America, Inc. and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, alleging they manufactured their vehicles that contain soy-based materials that attract vermin. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs suffered damages from having their claims for coverage denied which resulted in them paying to have the wiring replaced. The plaintiffs allege Kia used a soy-based material for the wiring of their vehicles and this attracts vermin to chew through wiring and engine components in their vehicles, causing faulty wiring. The suit says repair costs ran from $294.25 to $2,660.27 The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, declare the soy-based material defect is covered by their warranty, injunctivie relief, restitution and disgorgement, compensatory damages, actual and statutory damages, interest, all legal fees and all other relief the court deems just. Their legal team includes attorneys Kolin C. Tang of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP in Los Angeles and by James C. Shah of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah in Media, Pennsylvania. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case number 8:17-cv-01272-CJC-DFM [GN] KS INDUSTRIES: Worker Claims Subject to Class Action Waiver ----------------------------------------------------------- Mark A. Neubaue, Esq. -- mneubauer@carltonfields.com -- and Meredith M. Moss, Esq. -- mmoss@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton Fields, report that employers finally won a key victory in California courts in the continuing conflict between mandatory arbitration/class waiver agreements versus representative actions brought under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). In Esparza v. KS Industries, L.P., the California Fifth District Court of Appeal held that while PAGA claims for civil penalties cannot be arbitrated or waived, the underlying worker claims for the wages themselves are subject both to arbitration and a class action waiver. This substantially undercuts an employer's group exposure in wage and hour actions. While conceding the California Supreme Court's decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC, (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 precluded arbitration of PAGA claims notwithstanding the Federal Arbitration Act, the Esparza court held that plaintiffs who still seek wages must still individually arbitrate their wage claims. This decision places employees and their lawyers in a quandary. Where they file a PAGA case coupled with a class action asking for wages before they determine whether or not a mandatory class action/arbitration agreement exists, they may have a duty to their potential class clients not to waive that individual recovery. Consequently, they may want to limit their complaint to just the PAGA penalties but then the amount is substantially less as is the statute of limitations (one year vs. four). The Court of Appeal interpreted Iskanian as follows: "The rule adopted in Iskanian attempted to define the boundary between the two types of claims by stating that PAGA representative claims for civil penalties are not subject to arbitration. We conclude for purposes of the Iskanian rule, PAGA representative claims for civil penalties are limited to those where a portion of the recovery is allocated to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Claims for unpaid wages based on Labor Code Section 558 are not allocated in this matter and therefore the Iskanian rule does not exempt such claims from arbitration." The Court of Appeal went on to point out the conflict created by seeking both civil penalties and statutory damages: "Similarly, Employee's attempt to recover wages on behalf of other aggrieved employees involve victim-specific relief and private disputes. The rule of non-arbitrability adopted in Iskanian is limited to claims that can only be brought by the state and/or its representatives, where any resulting judgment is binding on the state and any monetary penalties largely go to the state's coffers" [citation omitted]. "These limitations are not met by the claims for unpaid wages owed to other aggrieved employees because (1) those employees could pursue recovery of unpaid wages on their own right and (2) the unpaid wages recovered would not go to state coffers." "In sum, Employee's claims for unpaid wages are subject to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the party's arbitration agreement and the Federal Arbitration Act. The rule of non- arbitrability adopted in Iskanian is limited to representative claims for civil penalties in which the state has a direct financial interest." This is a clear victory for employers in California and reinforces the importance of employers utilizing arbitration agreements coupled with class action waivers in their employment agreements. Unless, of course, the California Supreme Court takes the case and decides otherwise.[GN] LANE LABS-USA: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in Bobo's Drugs Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned BOBO'S DRUGS, INC. d/b/a DAVIS ISLANDS PHARM ACYS individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. LANE LABS-USA, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-14046-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Jose Martinez entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for Class Certification without prejudice. The Court said, "Plaintiff filed the Motion soon after the filing of the Class Action Complaint in order to avoid an attempt by Defendant to moot Plaintiff's individual claim s in this class action. The Motion is premature, because a Rule 68 offer of full relief to the named plaintiff does not moot a class action, even if the offer precedes a class-certification motion, so long as the named plaintiff has not failed to diligently pursue class certification.'' Stein v. Buccaneers Ltd. P'ship, 772 F.3d 698, 707 (11th Cir. 2014) (To act diligently, a named plaintiff need not file a class-certification motion with the complaint or prematurely; it is enough that the named plaintiff diligently takes any necessary discovery, complies with any applicable local rules and scheduling orders, and acts without undue delay)." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xN46qa9o LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Firefighters Pension Files Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., PAUL A. ROOKE, DAVID REEDER, GARY STROMQUIST, and MARTIN S. CANNING, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 05543 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2017), was brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Lexmark between August 1, 2014 and July 20, 2015, both dates inclusive. The case alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act in that Lexmark made false and misleading statements regarding its end- user demand, channel inventory, and growth prospects for its high- margin supplies business. The Company also failed to disclose deterioration in end-user demand and excessive inventory levels at its European wholesale distributors. Lexmark ultimately acknowledged that its supplies growth was not attributable to end- user demand but rather the result of its European customers buying ahead of customary price increases which produced excessive inventory. Defendant Lexmark Int'l., Inc. is a manufacturer of printers and related supplies, primarily ink cartridges. Lexmark sells its products to wholesale distributors and large retail chains in more than 90 countries around the world. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Keller, Esq. Eric J. Belfi, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 907-0700 Fax: (212) 818-0477 Email: ckeller@labaton.com ebelfi@labaton.com fmcconville@labaton.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Spengler Can't Pursue Class Suit, Court Says ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL R. SPENGLER, the Plaintiff v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFFS, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01809-DOC-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheri Pym entered an order denying Plaintiff's Motion to treat case as class action. The Court said, "On July 10, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to certify this and two of his other pending cases as class actions. Putting aside the fact that plaintiff has not filed a class action complaint or attempted to meet any of the requirements for class certification, the court will not treat this as even a putative class action because in no event may plaintiff assert claims on behalf of other inmates. By statute, litigants have the right to represent themselves in federal court, that is, to "plead and conduct their own cases personally." 28 U.S.C. section 1654. But "[i]t is well established that the privilege to represent oneself pro se provided by Sec. 1654 is personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities." Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing McShane v. U.S., 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966)). In short, pro se litigants have no authority to represent anyone other than themselves. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (parent cannot bring action on behalf of minor without retaining counsel); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995) (non-attorney may only appear in her own behalf); Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) ("it is plain error to permit this imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action"). Accordingly, plaintiff does not have standing to vicariously assert the constitutional claims of others. See Johns, 114 F.3d at 876 ("constitutional claims are personal and cannot be asserted vicariously") (citing U.S. v. Mitchell, 915 F.2d 521, 526 n.8 (9th Cir. 1990) (criminal defendant "does not have standing to raise the rights of other persons whose rights may have been violated in the course of this investigation")); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Sec. 17(a)(1) ("An action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest."). In short, plaintiff cannot bring this case as a class action. Consequently, his motion is denied." A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZwoF5nxT M3 USA: "Mauthe" Suit Transferred to S. Dist. of Fla. ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Comprehensive Health Care Systems of The Palm Beaches, Inc., a Florida corporation and Robert W. Mauthe M.D., P.C., individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs v. M3 USA Corporation and John Does 1-12, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-mc-00126 was transferred from Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) on July 31, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:17-mc-80893-BB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Beth Bloom. M3 USA provides market research, multi-channel promotions, and physician recruitment services.[BN] The Plaintiffs appeared PRO SE. MASTIHA CORP: Faces "Molina" Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mastiha Corp. The case is styled as Luis C. Molina, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mastiha Corp., doing business as: Stage Door Deli, George Chritis and Gustavo Rosario, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05939 (S.D.N.Y., August 7, 2017). The Defendants own and operate a lifestyle boutique offering natural products.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. MARATHON OIL: Faces Kunneman Properties Suit in Okla. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marathon Oil Company. The case is styled as Kunneman Properties LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Marathon Oil Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00456-JED-FHM (N.D. Okla., August 7, 2017). Marathon Oil is an American petroleum and natural gas exploration and production company headquartered in the Marathon Oil Tower in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reagan Edward Bradford, Esq. Lanier Law Firm (OKC) 12 E CALIFORNIA AVE STE 200 Oklahoma City, OK 73104 Tel: (405) 820-4401 Fax: (713) 659-2204 Email: reagan.bradford@lanierlawfirm.com - and - W Mark Lanier, Esq. Lanier Law Firm (Houston) 6810 FM 1960 W HOUSTON, TX 77069 Tel: (713) 659-5200 MAXIMUS INC: Violates Securities Laws, Steamfitters Plan Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION PLAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MAXIMUS, INC., RICHARD MONTONI, RICHARD NADEAU, and BRUCE CASWELL, Case No. 1:17-cv-00884-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va., August 4, 2017), is brought on behalf of all persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired Maximus common stock between October 30, 2014, and February 3, 2016, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Maximus is an administrator providing business process management to government health and human services agencies in the United States, Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. Maximus focuses on administering government-sponsored benefit programs, such as the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid, as well as welfare-to-work and child support programs. Maximus' primary customer base includes federal, provincial, state, county, and municipal governments. Maximus is incorporated in Virginia and maintains its principal executive offices in Reston, Virginia. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan R. Podolsky, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN R. PODOLSKY 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (571) 366-1702 Facsimile: (703) 647-6009 E-mail: spodolsky@podolskylaw.com - and - Christopher J. Keller, Esq. Eric J. Belfi, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com ebelfi@labaton.com fmcconville@labaton.com MAXIMUS INC: Oct. 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid --------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP on Aug. 7 disclosed that on August 4, it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan ("Steamfitters 449") against MAXIMUS, INC. ("Maximus" or the "Company"), and certain of its senior executives (collectively, "Defendants"). The action, which is captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Maximus, Inc., No. 17-cv-00884 (E.D. Va.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Maximus common stock between October 30, 2014 and February 3, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"). On October 29, 2014, the United Kingdom Department for Work and Pensions awarded Maximus a significant contract to carry out health and disability benefits, called the Health Assessment Advisory Service ("HAAS"), over a period of three and a half years. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, despite encountering problems from the start, Defendants assured investors that Maximus was meeting targets concerning the HAAS contract. During the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) in obtaining the HAAS contract, Maximus set an unattainable target number of healthcare professionals to recruit and an unattainable target number of assessments; (ii) throughout the HAAS contract, Maximus was struggling to recruit, train and ramp-up new health care staff to perform the assessments; (iii) the inability to meet its target number of healthcare recruits and target number of assessments, meant Maximus would not earn the performance-based incentive fees from the HAAS contract; and (iv) consequently, Defendants' statements about the Company, its financial condition, and the outlook for its business, including statements about the HAAS contract and the amount of revenue the Company expected the contract to contribute, lacked a reasonable basis when made. On February 4, 2016, Maximus issued a press release announcing its earnings for the first quarter of fiscal 2016, again missing expectations and confirming its inability to meet HAAS contract assessment targets. The reduced earnings were based in part on weak performance of the HAAS contract, which "tempered operating margin." On this news, shares of Maximus common stock dropped $5.53 per share over two trading sessions, or 10.5 percent. If you purchased or acquired Maximus common stock during the Class Period, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia no later than October 6, 2017. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P. McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at fmcconville@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the complaint online at http://www.labaton.com/en/about/press/Labaton- Sucharow-Files-Securities-Class-Action-on-Behalf-of-Maximus-Inc- Investors.cfm Steamfitters 449 is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally with combined assets under management of more than $2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its half-century of securities litigation experience, more than 60 full-time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants. Labaton Sucharow -- http://www.labaton.com-- has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, Washington, D.C., and Chicago, IL. [GN] MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Awards $2M in Counsel Fees in "Ochoa" ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs in a total amount of $2,000,000 in the case captioned STEPHANIE OCHOA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. McDONALD'S CORP., et al., Defendant, Case No. 3:14- cv-02098-JD (N.D. Cal.). Before reaching a settlement with McDonald's on the eve of trial, the Class Counsel engaged in approximately 2.5 years of intense litigation, involving review of more than 100,000 pages of discovery, more than a dozen depositions, a motion to certify the class, motions for full and partial summary judgment, a motion to strike and several motions to seal, briefing regarding the propriety of interlocutory appeals, and months of settlement negotiations culminating in settlements first with the Edward J. Smith and Valerie S. Smith Family Limited Partnership ("Smith") and then with McDonald's. The two settlements provide significant injunctive relief to class members, as well as substantial monetary compensation. Judge Donato finds that the requested award, which is just over one-half of the actual lodestar value of the fees and costs incurred by the Class Counsel in litigating this matter, is fair and reasonable under the applicable fee-shifting analysis. The payments that McDonald's and Smith will make to class members and to the State of California as a result of the Court-approved settlement agreements exceed the total award of fees and costs requested by the Class Counsel, and the two settlements also provide significant and meaningful injunctive relief to the class. The Class Counsel's request thus falls well within the range of awards made in comparable fee-shifting cases. Judge Donato further finds that notice of the requested award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses was directed to class members in a reasonable manner that complied with Rule 23(h)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Class counsel filed their motion for attorneys' fees and costs on March 17, 2017, the class members and any party from whom payment is sought have been given the opportunity to object, and no class member or other party has objected to the requested fees or expenses. The absence of any objection further supports the reasonableness and fairness of the requested award. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs came before the Court for hearing on July 13, 2017. Having considered the arguments and evidence, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs and awards class counsel $2,000,000 in statutory attorneys' fees and costs, to be paid by McDonald's pursuant to the terms of the Court-approved class action settlement between the McDonald's Defendants and the Named Plaintiffs/Class Representatives. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/jq0MpG from Leagle.com. Stephanie Ochoa, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Jane Chisholm - - bchisholm@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuer Berzon LLP. Stephanie Ochoa, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Marc Sellers -- michael.j.sellers@gmail.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Kristin Marie Garcia -- kgarcia@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Matthew J. Murray -- mmurray@altshulerberzon.com -- Atshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com - - Altshuler Berzon LLP, Miriam Rose Nemeth -- mnemeth@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC & Patrick Casey Pitts -- cpitts@altshulerberzon.com -- Alsthuler Berzon LLP. Ernestina Sandoval, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Jane Chisholm, Altshuer Berzon LLP, Joseph Marc Sellers, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Kristin Marie Garcia, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Matthew J. Murray, Atshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Miriam Rose Nemeth, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Patrick Casey Pitts, Alsthuler Berzon LLP. Yadira Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Jane Chisholm, Altshuer Berzon LLP, Joseph Marc Sellers, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Kristin Marie Garcia, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Matthew J. Murray, Atshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Miriam Rose Nemeth, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Patrick Casey Pitts, Alsthuler Berzon LLP. Jasmine Hedgepeth, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Jane Chisholm, Altshuer Berzon LLP, Joseph Marc Sellers, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Kristin Marie Garcia, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Matthew J. Murray, Atshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Miriam Rose Nemeth, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Patrick Casey Pitts, Alsthuler Berzon LLP. McDonald's Corp., Defendant, represented by Brent D. Knight, Jones Day, pro hac vice, Jonathan Bunge, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Linus, pro hac vice, Lawrence C. DiNardo, JONES, DAY, REAVIS 7 POGUE, pro hac vice, Allison B. Moser, JONES DAY, Catherine Suzanne Nasser, Jones Day, Daniel Lombard, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Elizabeth B. McRee, Jones Day, Kelsey Israel-Trummel, Jones Day, Margaret Pepple, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice & Valerie Anne Lozano, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP. McDonald's U.S.A., LLC, Defendant, represented by Brent D. Knight, Jones Day, pro hac vice, Jonathan Bunge, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Linus, pro hac vice, Lawrence C. DiNardo, JONES, DAY, REAVIS 7 POGUE, pro hac vice, Allison B. Moser, JONES DAY, Catherine Suzanne Nasser, Jones Day, Daniel Lombard, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Elizabeth B. McRee, Jones Day, Fred W. Alvarez, JONES DAY, Kelsey Israel-Trummel, Jones Day, Margaret Pepple, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice & Valerie Anne Lozano, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP. McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brent D. Knight -- bdknight@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice, Jonathan Bunge, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Linus, pro hac vice, Lawrence C. DiNardo, JONES, DAY, REAVIS 7 POGUE, pro hac vice, Allison B. Moser -- amoser@svelf.com -- JONES DAY, Catherine Suzanne Nasser - - csnasser@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Daniel Lombard, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Diane M. Doolittle -- dianedoolittle@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Elizabeth B. McRee -- emcree@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Fred W. Alvarez, JONES DAY, Kelsey Israel-Trummel -- kitrummel@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Margaret Pepple, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice & Valerie Anne Lozano -- valerielozano@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP. The Edward J. Smith and Valerie S. Smith Family Limited Partnership, Defendant, represented by Bruce E. Weisenberg, Freeman Mathis and Gary, John Laurence Fitzgerald -- jfitzgerald@fmglaw.com -- Dennis Daniel Strazulo -- dstrazulo@fmglaw.com -- Freeman, Mathis & Gary LLP, Elizabeth B. McRee, Jones Day, Jeanine A. Scalero, Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP & Lisa Rachel Gorman, Freeman Mathis and Gary, LLP. MCDONALD'S CORP: Settlement in "Ochoa" Gets Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco, granted final approval of the parties' Settlement Agreement dated Oct. 27, 2016, in the case captioned STEPHANIE OCHOA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. McDONALD'S CORP., et al., Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-02098-JD (N.D. Cal.). The matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement dated Jan. 27, 2017, and on application of the parties for final approval of their Settlement. Having considered all relevant factors for determining the fairness of the Settlement and concluded that all such factors weigh in favor of granting final approval, Judge Donato finally approved in all respects the Settlement. He directed the Settlement to be consummated in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein. Judge Donato dismissed the action against the Released Parties with prejudice as to the Class Representatives and all Class Members and without costs, except as otherwise provided in the Settlement. He finds that a service award of $500 for each Class Representative is appropriate for the Class Representatives' efforts in bringing and prosecuting the action and for devoting time and effort to keeping themselves informed of the litigation. The Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses will be addressed by a separate order. Without affecting the finality of the Final Order and Judgment in any way, the Court retains continuing jurisdiction over (i) implementation of the Settlement; and (ii) the Parties and the Class Members for the purpose of construing, enforcing, and administering the Settlement and this Final Order and Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/Hp8Nma from Leagle.com. Stephanie Ochoa, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Jane Chisholm - - bchisholm@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuer Berzon LLP. Stephanie Ochoa, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Marc Sellers -- michael.j.sellers@gmail.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Kristin Marie Garcia -- kgarcia@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Matthew J. Murray -- mmurray@altshulerberzon.com -- Atshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com - - Altshuler Berzon LLP, Miriam Rose Nemeth -- mnemeth@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC & Patrick Casey Pitts -- cpitts@altshulerberzon.com -- Alsthuler Berzon LLP. Ernestina Sandoval, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Jane Chisholm, Altshuer Berzon LLP, Joseph Marc Sellers, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Kristin Marie Garcia, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Matthew J. Murray, Atshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Miriam Rose Nemeth, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Patrick Casey Pitts, Alsthuler Berzon LLP. Yadira Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Jane Chisholm, Altshuer Berzon LLP, Joseph Marc Sellers, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Kristin Marie Garcia, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Matthew J. Murray, Atshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Miriam Rose Nemeth, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Patrick Casey Pitts, Alsthuler Berzon LLP. Jasmine Hedgepeth, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Jane Chisholm, Altshuer Berzon LLP, Joseph Marc Sellers, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Kristin Marie Garcia, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Matthew J. Murray, Atshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Miriam Rose Nemeth, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Patrick Casey Pitts, Alsthuler Berzon LLP. McDonald's Corp., Defendant, represented by Brent D. Knight, Jones Day, pro hac vice, Jonathan Bunge, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Linus, pro hac vice, Lawrence C. DiNardo, JONES, DAY, REAVIS 7 POGUE, pro hac vice, Allison B. Moser, JONES DAY, Catherine Suzanne Nasser, Jones Day, Daniel Lombard, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Elizabeth B. McRee, Jones Day, Kelsey Israel-Trummel, Jones Day, Margaret Pepple, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice & Valerie Anne Lozano, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP. McDonald's U.S.A., LLC, Defendant, represented by Brent D. Knight, Jones Day, pro hac vice, Jonathan Bunge, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Linus, pro hac vice, Lawrence C. DiNardo, JONES, DAY, REAVIS 7 POGUE, pro hac vice, Allison B. Moser, JONES DAY, Catherine Suzanne Nasser, Jones Day, Daniel Lombard, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Elizabeth B. McRee, Jones Day, Fred W. Alvarez, JONES DAY, Kelsey Israel-Trummel, Jones Day, Margaret Pepple, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice & Valerie Anne Lozano, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP. McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brent D. Knight -- bdknight@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice, Jonathan Bunge, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Linus, pro hac vice, Lawrence C. DiNardo, JONES, DAY, REAVIS 7 POGUE, pro hac vice, Allison B. Moser -- amoser@svelf.com -- JONES DAY, Catherine Suzanne Nasser - - csnasser@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Daniel Lombard, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Diane M. Doolittle -- dianedoolittle@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Elizabeth B. McRee -- emcree@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Fred W. Alvarez, JONES DAY, Kelsey Israel-Trummel -- kitrummel@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Margaret Pepple, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice & Valerie Anne Lozano -- valerielozano@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP. The Edward J. Smith and Valerie S. Smith Family Limited Partnership, Defendant, represented by Bruce E. Weisenberg, Freeman Mathis and Gary, John Laurence Fitzgerald -- jfitzgerald@fmglaw.com -- Dennis Daniel Strazulo -- dstrazulo@fmglaw.com -- Freeman, Mathis & Gary LLP, Elizabeth B. McRee, Jones Day, Jeanine A. Scalero, Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP & Lisa Rachel Gorman, Freeman Mathis and Gary, LLP. MIAMI GARDENS: "Saleh" Suit Seeks Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled YAZAN SALEH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIAMI GARDENS SQUARE ONE, INC. D/B/A TOOTSIE'S CABARET, a Florida corporation, and RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC., a Texas Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20001-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: (i) all persons in the United States (ii) who, when making payment for goods or services at one of RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiaries across the country (iii) made such payment using a credit or debit card (iv) and were provided with a point of sale receipt (v) which displayed more than the last 5 digits of said credit or debit card (vi) within the two years prior to the filing of the complaint to the date of class certification". According to the Complaint, the Defendants systematically and willfully violated one of this Nation's most fundamental consumer protections against identity theft. Defendants printed the first six and last four digits of their customer's credit and debit card account numbers -- nearly two thirds of the digits -- on electronically printed, point of sale receipts at their chain of establishments. This case is ideal for class certification, the Plaintiff contends, saying number courts have certified similar Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) cases, including Judge Cohn in Legg v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., 315 F.R.D. 383 (S.D. Fla. 2015). Like Legg, Plaintiff says his proposed class has numerous people with the same relatively small claim for statutory damages. Each claim raises the same material issues and the case covers a manageable six-month time period (July 5, 2016 through January 4, 2017). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KGSuLooj The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Owens, Esq. Patrick C. Crotty, Esq. Sean M. Holas, Esq. SCOTT D.OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589 0588 Facsimile: 954-337-0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com patrick@scottdowens.com sean@scottdowens.com - and - Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com - and - Bret L. Lusskin, Esq. LUSSKIN LAW 20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 454 5841 Facsimile: (954) 454 5844 E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Goldberg" Suit in New York East. Dist. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Elke Goldberg, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04610 (E.D.N.Y., August 7, 2017). Midland Credit Management Inc. operates a collection agency that helps consumers resolve past-due debt obligations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C. 337 Avenue W, Suite 2f Brooklyn, NY 11223 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com MISSOURI, USA: Court Narrows Claims in "Sargent" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern Division, partially dismissed the case captioned INCENT E. SARGENT, Plaintiff, v. STEVE LONG, et al., Defendants, No. 1:17-CV-12 NAB (E.D. Mo.). The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights. The Plaintiff, a practicing Muslim, claims that the Defendants Thomas Shanefelter (Regional Food Service Coordinator, MDOC) and Joseph Campbell (Food Service Manager, SECC) violated his First Amendment rights to freely practice his religion and equal protection rights to be free from discrimination when they denied him the same meal as the rest of the general prison population during the religious month of Ramadan. He believes that the sack lunch he was given for fasting during Ramadan was tantamount to punishment for practicing his religious beliefs, a clear violation of RLUIPA. The Plaintiff states, in a conclusory manner that Doug Worsham and Robin Norris instituted the rule of serving fasting Muslim inmates sack lunches under the guise of accommodation but this has only resulted in a form of punishment for practicing a sincerely held religious belief. He has not produced any facts that have indicated that Worsham or Norris instituted the sack lunch rules. Plaintiff claims that Worsham and Steven Johnson, the Chaplain at SECC, violated his First Amendment rights to freely practice his religion and his equal protecting right to be free from discrimination and RLUIPA when they refused he and other Muslims the right to receive religious oil donations (or the right to purchase religious oil) from a valid Islamic vendor. He states in a conclusory fashion that Defendant Long and Dave Dormire issued the directive not to allow the purchasing of religious oils, but he has not included any statements relating to these two Defendants or their issuance of such a directive. Last, the Plaintiff asserts that Ms. B. Meredith (Functional Unit Manager, SECC), Acting Warden Stange and Dwayne Kemper upheld the enforcement of DOC policy I.S. 17-1.1, Sec. (L) Section B. He Plaintiff believes that the policy violates his right to equal protection and to be free from discrimination, presumably under RLUIPA and/or the First Amendment, by limiting the wearing of a kufi to religious practice only. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief only in this action. Judge White denied the Plaintiff's request to certify a class action will be denied because a litigant may bring his own claims to federal court without counsel, but not the claims of others. He also dismissed the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants in their official capacity, as naming a government official in his or her official capacity is the equivalent of naming the government entity that employs the official, in this case the State of Missouri. Judge White held that the Plaintiff's claims against Worsham and Norris for purportedly instituting the sack lunch rule, as well as his claims against Long and Dormire for issuing the alleged directive not to allow such purchases, are too conclusory to state a claim for relief at this time. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted by Judge White. The Plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $35.28 within 30 days of the date of the Order. He is instructed to make his remittance payable to Clerk, United States District Court. If he fails to pay the initial partial filing fee within 30 days of the date of the Order, then this case will be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint as to Defendants Shanefelter, Campbell, Worsham, Johnson, FUM Meredith, Stange and Kemper in their individual capacities. The Defendants, who are MDOC employees, shall be served through the waiver of service agreement the Court maintains with the Missouri Attorney General's Office. The Defendants shall reply to the Plaintiff's claims within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge White held that the Plaintiff's claim against Worsham for purportedly instituting the sack lunch rule in violation of his civil rights is subject to dismissal at this time. The Clerk is directed not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint as to the Plaintiff's claims against all of the Defendants in their official capacities because the complaint is legally frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to these claims. The Clerk is further ordered not to issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint as to Defendants Long, Dormire and Norris because, as the complaint is legally frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/kxcnBn from Leagle.com. Vincent E. Sargent, Plaintiff, Pro Se. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Leo" Suit Reassigned to Judge Martinotii -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Edward Leo, as executor of the Estate of Dawn L. Leo, Clifford J Marchion, Donna Marchion, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC of Delaware doing business as: Champion Mortgage Company, Great American Assurance Company, Willis of Ohio, Inc. doing business as: Loan Protector Insurance Services, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-5839 was reassigned from Judge Renee Marie Bumb, Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams, to Judge Brian R. Martinotti and Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 7, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-05839-BRM-DEA to the proceeding. Nationstar provides mortgage services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher Brendan Healy, Esq. BATHGATE WEGENER & WOLF PC One Airport Road Lakewood, NJ 08701 Tel: (732) 363-0666 Email: chealy@bathweg.com NEVADA, USA: Court Dismisses "Downing" Suit without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned CURTIS L. DOWNING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STEVEN B. WOLFSON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02131-APG- PAL (D. Nev.), Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada accepted Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen's report and recommendation, overruled Plaintiff Downing's objections and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The Plaintiffs are inmates at the Southern Desert Correctional Center who have been convicted of crimes under Nevada state law and are in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections. They bring this declaratory relief action alleging that certain Nevada criminal statutes are unconstitutional because they derive from unconstitutional acts of the Nevada Legislature and Nevada Supreme Court justices. Some Plaintiffs have moved to proceed in forma pauperis and two paid the filing fee. Magistrate Judge Leen recommended that Judge Gordon dismissed this case because, despite prior warnings, Plaintiff Downing continues to identify himself as the Lead Plaintiff and attempts to represent the other Plaintiffs, which he cannot do because he is not an attorney. Additionally, she noted that because Downing is not an attorney, he cannot represent the class in a class action and the Plaintiffs must hire an attorney to represent them to pursue class-wide claims. Finally, the Magistrate Judge screened the complaint and found it did not state a claim because the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the rule in Heck v. Humphrey. In light of the proposed dismissal, she also recommended that the applications to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot and the filing fees of the two who paid be refunded. Plaintiff Downing filed an objection. He concedes he cannot represent the other Plaintiffs and that they cannot proceed on a class basis without counsel. He therefore requests Judge Gordon appoint counsel. On the merits, Downing generally argues the Court can exercise jurisdiction in this case to address the constitutional challenges to Nevada statutes. As to Heck, Downing argues that structural errors in his state criminal prosecution render his conviction void such that he has no conviction to challenge. Judge Gordon explains that under the rule announced in Heck, if a judgment in the plaintiff's favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. The Plaintiffs state that they are still in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections as a result of state court convictions. Thus, they cannot demonstrate that their convictions or sentences have already been invalidated. As a result, their claims are barred under Heck. Accordingly, Judge Gordon dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice to each Plaintiff refiling his claim should his criminal conviction later be invalidated. He denied the request to appoint counsel because he dismissed this case. Plaintiffs Downing, Erick Brown, Edwin Artiga, Fabian Rosas, and Oscar Perez- Marquez's applications to proceed in forma pauperis are denied. The clerk of court is directed to refund Nicholas Willing and Erick Brown's $400 filing fee and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/QbHtBJ from Leagle.com. Curtis L. Downing, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Erick M. Brown, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Gaston Joseph Danjou, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Robert Reiger, Plaintiff, Pro se. Paul Barfield, Plaintiff, Pro se. Demetrius Joseph, Plaintiff, Pro se. Elder Zacarias-Lopez, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Jeffrey M Austin, Plaintiff, Pro se. Edwin Artiga, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Jeffrey T. Lark, Plaintiff, Pro se. Alan D Daniels, Plaintiff, Pro se. Oscar Perez-Marquez, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Christopher Willing, Plaintiff, Pro se. Nicholas Willing, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Fabian F Rosas, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Scott Nichols, Plaintiff, Pro se. Gary Shepard, Plaintiff, Pro se. Jerry B Johnson, Plaintiff, Pro se. NORTHERN TIER: "Kendig" Securities Suit Sent to D. Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------- Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver signed an order transferring the case captioned JEFF KENDIG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. NORTHERN TIER ENERGY LP (NTI), NORTHERN TIER ENERGY GP LLC, DAVID L. LAMP, PAUL L. FOSTER, LOWRY BARFIELD, TIMOTHY BENNETT, ROCKY L. DUCKWORTH, THOMAS HOFMANN, DAN F. SMITH, JEFF A. STEVENS, SCOTT D. WEAVER, WESTERN REFINING, INC., WESTERN ACQUISITION CO., LLC AND EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C., Defendants (originally, Case No. 2:16-cv-02844, D. Ariz., August 24, 2016) from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Wilmington), and assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00985-UNA, according to a case docket dated July 20, 2017. The case alleges violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act in connection with the going private transaction between NTI and WNR, whereby WNR acquired the 61.6% of outstanding NTI common units it did not already own in exchange for inadequate consideration. The Transaction closed on June 23, 2016. Defendants have allegedly violated the above-referenced Sections of the Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement/prospectus. Specifically, the Proxy contained materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the valuation of the Merger Consideration and financial analyses conducted by Evercore, financial advisor to the NTI GP Conflicts Committee; (ii) the projected financial information furnished to the NTI GP Conflicts Committee and Evercore for purposes of evaluating the Transaction; and (iii) Defendants' views with respect to the fairness of the Merger and Merger Consideration to NTI Unaffiliated Unitholders in light of the various indications that the Merger Consideration was not in fact fair to them. Northern Tier Energy LP is a downstream energy limited partnership with refining, retail and logistics operations that served the Midwest region of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrick B. Farrell, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 468-5646 Fax: (302) 691-4778 E-mail: Derrick.Farrell@dlapiper.com NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Gomez" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group, Inc. The case is styled as Alejandra Gomez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Northland Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04670 (E.D. N.Y., August 9, 2017). Northland Group provides accounts receivable management and collection services to national credit grantors, debt buyers, and student loan lenders.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Bonin et al. File Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled ELAINE BONIN and MORGAN OTTMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01094-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a proposed class in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DriCu0Y0 The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com ONONDAGA COUNTY, NY: Settles Solitary Confinement Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Feuer, writing for The New York Times, reports that a year after the Department of Justice banned putting juvenile inmates in federal prisons into solitary confinement, a small network of inmate advocates has undertaken an effort to end the practice in some of upstate New York's county jails. In late June, the New York Civil Liberties Union and a public defenders group in Syracuse settled a class-action lawsuit with officials at the Onondaga County jail, who agreed to stop placing 16- and 17-year-old inmates into solitary confinement. Working alone, the public defenders group, Legal Services of Central New York, sued officials at the Broome County jail, saying the sheriff and other jail officials routinely locked young inmates into 8-by- 10 foot cells for 23 hours a day, sometimes for weeks on end. The inmates were left with "no meaningful human interaction, no education or programming, no music or television, and limited reading materials," the suit says. A large body of scientific research indicates that solitary confinement is especially damaging to adolescents and young adults because their brains are still developing. Prolonged isolation in solitary cells can worsen mental illness and in some cases cause it, studies have shown. In the last few years, federal officials have wrested similar agreements on ending the placement of young inmates in solitary confinement at local jails in Baltimore; Jefferson County, Ala.; Hinds County, Miss., and at Rikers Island in New York. Under a settlement with the New York Civil Liberties Union, which was reached at the end of 2015 and is still being put into effect, the State Department of Corrections has agreed to stop putting juvenile inmates into solitary confinement at all state prisons. Lawyers for the teenage inmates in Onondaga and Broome Counties said the vast majority had been placed in solitary as a punishment even before their trials and had been held there, in some cases for extended periods, without having been convicted of a crime. "Despite an emerging consensus that solitary confinement places juveniles at risk of serious harm -- including suicide, psychosis and post-traumatic stress disorder -- and despite a national abandonment of the solitary confinement of juveniles, the Broome County Sheriff's Office has embraced the frequent and arbitrary use of solitary confinement," the most recent lawsuit said. "As the Sheriff's Office is well aware, these practices are exposing the young people held at the jail to serious harm." The Onondaga County jail, which has 671 beds, sits in downtown Syracuse, a city of about 140,000 people. The Broome County jail has about 560 beds and is in Dickinson, N.Y., a small town just outside Binghamton and about a three-hour drive from New York City. The Broome County suit, which was filed on July 25 on behalf of all young inmates at the jail, cites two plaintiffs, both of whom are 17 and were charged with felonies but have not yet gone to trial. One of them, A.T., arrived at the jail on Nov. 3 and has already been in solitary confinement for more than 100 days. The other, B.C., entered the jail on April 16, 2016, and has spent more than 150 days in solitary. According to the suit, "nearly every aspect" of the Broome County jail's solitary wing, or special housing unit, is "dehumanizing." When juveniles are taken to the unit, they are strip searched, the suit says, and for the first three days are allowed only one religious book. If they do not have a religious book, the suit went on, they are left "with nothing to do but sit and think." The cells smell of feces and urine, according to the suit, and are covered in graffiti. Inmates are given a shower every other day and one hour of exercise a day in a yard with no seating, equipment or activities. During their first week there, the suit says, they are shackled at the waist, wrist and ankles in the yard. The suit says A.T., who is scheduled to remain in solitary until December, started yelling in his cell one day after he was served a peanut butter sandwich on stale bread with a hair in it. Corrections officers entered his cell, forced him into a mechanical restraining chair and pepper-sprayed him, the suit says. He was then taken to another cell, in the jail's medical unit, where he was forced to take his clothes off and was left naked for two and a half days, the suit says. B.C. is in solitary for fighting with another inmate and is scheduled to stay there until late September. His previous stints in what is colloquially known as the Box arose from less egregious incidents, according to the suit: for talking loudly, singing, horse-playing, saying hello to his brother in a hallway and playing with snow in the yard. The Broome County sheriff, David Harder, said that most of his jail's 500 or so inmates followed the rules, but that those who did not needed to be subject to punishment. "These two," Sheriff Harder added, "didn't follow the rules in jail, just like they didn't on the streets." The suit against Onondaga County officials was settled on June 26, four months after Judge David N. Hurd of Federal District Court in Utica, N.Y., issued a ruling that found "convincing evidence" that the jail's "continued use of solitary confinement on juveniles puts them at serious risk of short- and long-term psychological damage." In his ruling, Judge Hurd said juveniles in solitary were forced to eat alone in their cells and were not permitted to talk to one another either through the doors or in passing. They are denied access to radios and TV sets, he wrote, and have only limited reading materials. For those who are mentally ill, treatment "is limited to jail staff" occasionally asking "whether they are feeling homicidal or suicidal," Judge Hurd wrote. The inmates were also deprived of their state-mandated rights to an education, he said, hindering "important aspects of their adolescent development." Under the terms of the settlement, Onondaga County officials agreed to put juveniles in solitary confinement only if they posed "an imminent threat" to the safety of the jail and then only for "the minimum period of time necessary to resolve the threat." Jail officials also agreed to write reports about any use of solitary for juvenile inmates, allow juveniles to take at least one shower a day and increase outdoor recreation for juveniles to two hours. The settlement also required the Syracuse City School District to provide the inmates access to classes, special education services and an "incentive program" designed to encourage better behavior. The Justice Department under President Barack Obama weighed in on the Onondaga County suit with what is known as a letter of interest. In it, the department cited studies both by the government and by private organizations that showed that solitary confinement has a particularly "damaging impact" on children and can result in "serious psychological and developmental consequences." Joshua Cotter, the staff attorney for Legal Services of Central New York who filed both of the suits, said he had spent the last year or so looking into the solitary confinement practices of several other county jails in upstate New York. "The main hurdle is finding out when the kids are locked up and put in solitary," Mr. Cotter wrote in an email. "Since I'm the only one in my office working on this issue, I have to rely heavily on referrals from advocacy groups or parents." [GN] OREGON: Nelson Files Suit v. Dept. of Corrections ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oregon Department of Corrections. The case is styled as Robert Nelson, on behalf of himself, and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. State of Oregon, acting by and through, Jackson County Oregon and Oregon Department of Corrections, a state agency, Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-01239-AA (D. Or., August 9, 2017). The Oregon Department of Corrections is the agency of the U.S. state of Oregon charged with managing a system of 14 state prisons since its creation by the state legislature in 1987.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Burgess, Esq. Law Offices of Daniel Snyder 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97205 Tel: (503) 241-3617 Fax: (503) 241-2249 Email: johnburgess@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com - and - Carl Lee Post, Esq. Law Offices of Daniel Snyder 1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97205 Tel: (503) 241-3617 Fax: (503) 241-2249 Email: carlpost@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com - and - Daniel J. Snyder, Esq. Law Offices of Daniel Snyder 1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97205 Tel: (503) 241-3617 Fax: (503) 241-2249 Email: dansnyder@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com PALCO INC: Conditional Class Certification Granted in "Wells" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled CITIA WELLS, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v. PALCO, INC., ALICIA A. PALADINO, and LARRY PALADINO, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv- 00527-KGB (Ark.), the Hon. Judge Kristine G. Baker entered an order: 1. granting a joint motion for approval of stipulation on conditional class certification of: "all individuals who currently or formerly performed services for Palco, Inc. as a financial counselor at any time during the limitations period"; 2. directing Palco to provide to Ms. Wells the potential class members' contact information within 10 business days of the issuance of the Order; and 3. granting Ms. Wells 60 days from the date of receipt of the potential class members' contact information to distribute the notice and file all consent forms. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3mamxI6I PARK AVENUE SOUTH: "Bahena" Case Settlement Gets Preliminary OK --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned VICENTE BAHENA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PARK AVENUE SOUTH MANAGEMENT LLC, et al., Defendant, No. 15-CV-1507 (VSB)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for (i) preliminary approval of a class settlement agreement; (ii) conditional certification of the proposed class; (iii) approval of the proposed notice of the settlement; and (iv) appointment of class counsel and class representatives. The Plaintiffs and members of the settlement class are current and former employees of the Defendants who worked as building superintendents and porters in buildings owned, operated, or managed by the Defendants between March 2009 and the present. They allege that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and wage and hour laws of New York by failing to pay them overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 in all workweeks, failing to pay them the required minimum wage, and failing to provide the required notices. The Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing the Complaint on March 2, 2015. On May 19, 2015, they filed their Amended Complaint. On Sept. 16, 2016, Judge Broderick granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification as a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA. On Feb. 27, 2017, he granted the parties' request to hold discovery in abeyance pending mediation. On May 15, 2017, the parties participated in a mediation session at which they reached a settlement in principle. On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their unopposed motion to approve the settlement agreement, certify the settlement class, authorize the class notice, and schedule a fairness hearing along with the memorandum of law in support and declaration of Bruce Menken, with exhibits. Having reviewed the Plaintiffs' submissions, including the Settlement Agreement and the Declaration of Bruce Menken, Judge Broderick concluded that the settlement is the result of substantial investigative efforts, arm's length negotiations, and that its terms are within the range of possible settlement approval. He provisionally certified for settlement purposes the "Settlement Class" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) defined as all superintendents and porters who worked in a building or buildings managed, owned, or operated by the Defendants between March 3, 2009 and the date of the Order. He appointed the Plaintiffs' counsel, Bruce E. Menken of the law firm Beranbaum Menken LLP, as the class counsel. He also appointed Bahena, Jonas Bahena, Jose Cruz Ayala, and Rafael Rodriguez as the class representatives. Having reviewed the proposed notice submitted by the Plaintiffs, Judge Broderick approved their proposed notice. In addition, he noted that the Plaintiffs will provide English and Spanish copies of the notice. The Judge will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 1, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. to determine (i) whether the proposed settlement of this action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement is fair, just, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the Settlement Class; (ii) whether he should approve the Settlement Agreement; and (iii) whether he should enter a Final Judgment of Dismissal. To the extent that the Plaintiffs will seek to recover attorney's fees, Judge Broderick directed them to submit contemporaneous billing records for each attorney who worked on the case at the time they file their motion for final settlement approval. In addition, the Plaintiffs are directed to provide courtesy copies on or before Nov. 20 of their submissions, which shall include a proposed order for final settlement approval. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Memorandum and Opinion is available at https://is.gd/ykVFFu from Leagle.com. Vicente Bahena, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken, Beranbaum Menken Ben-Asher & Bierman LLP. Vicente Bahena, Plaintiff, represented by Grace Cathryn Cretcher - - gcretcher@nyemployeelaw.com -- Beranbaum Menken Ben-Asher & Bierman LLP, Abigail Ruth Cook-Mack, Beranbaum Menken, LLP & Scott Simpson -- ssimpson@nyemployeelaw.com -- Beranbaum Menken LLP. Jonas Bahena, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken, Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Grace Cathryn Cretcher, Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Abigail Ruth Cook-Mack, Beranbaum Menken, LLP & Scott Simpson, Beranbaum Menken LLP. Jose Cruz Ayala, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken, Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Grace Cathryn Cretcher, Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Abigail Ruth Cook-Mack, Beranbaum Menken, LLP & Scott Simpson, Beranbaum Menken LLP. Rafael Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken, Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Grace Cathryn Cretcher, Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Abigail Ruth Cook-Mack, Beranbaum Menken, LLP & Scott Simpson, Beranbaum Menken LLP. Alberto Rivera, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken, Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Grace Cathryn Cretcher, Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP & Scott Simpson, Beranbaum Menken LLP. Alexis Bahena, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken, Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Grace Cathryn Cretcher, Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP & Scott Simpson, Beranbaum Menken LLP. Bladimir DeLeon, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken, Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Grace Cathryn Cretcher, Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP & Scott Simpson, Beranbaum Menken LLP. Candido Quezeda, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken, Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Grace Cathryn Cretcher, Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP & Scott Simpson, Beranbaum Menken LLP. Fernando Delvalle, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Eric Menken, Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP, Grace Cathryn Cretcher, Beranbaum Menken Ben- Asher & Bierman LLP & Scott Simpson, Beranbaum Menken LLP. Park Avenue South Management LLC, Defendant, represented by Carolyn Diane Richmond -- crichmond@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild, LLP, Glenn Sklaire Grindlinger -- ggrindlinger@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild, LLP & James M. Lemonedes -- jlemonedes@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild, Attorneys at Law. Gilanco Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Eric David Raphan -- eraphan@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP & Sean Joseph Kirby -- skirby@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP. 3850 Broadway Holding LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel William Morris -- dwmorris@cbdm.com -- Clifton Budd & DeMaria, LLP. Barberry Rose Management Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel William Morris, Clifton Budd & DeMaria, LLP. 2500 ACP Partners LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Leeds Morelli & Brown, Lauren Ruth Reznick, Leeds Brown Law, P.C. & Michael Alexander Tompkins, Leeds Brown Law PC. Amsterdam Realty Partners, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Leeds Morelli & Brown, Lauren Ruth Reznick, Leeds Brown Law, P.C. & Michael Alexander Tompkins, Leeds Brown Law PC. Emo Realty Partners LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Leeds Morelli & Brown, Lauren Ruth Reznick, Leeds Brown Law, P.C. & Michael Alexander Tompkins, Leeds Brown Law PC. Maurice Mckenzie, Defendant, represented by Carolyn Diane Richmond, Fox Rothschild, LLP, Glenn Sklaire Grindlinger, Fox Rothschild, LLP & James M. Lemonedes, Fox Rothschild, Attorneys at Law. Edward M. Ostad, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Leeds Morelli & Brown, Lauren Ruth Reznick, Leeds Brown Law, P.C. & Michael Alexander Tompkins, Leeds Brown Law PC. PAYPAL INC: Tovar Sues Over Use of Auto Telephone Dialing System ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ramon Tovar, on behalf himself and others similarly situated v. PayPal, Inc. and Bill Me Later, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-04421 (N.D. Cal., August 4, 2017), alleges that the Defendants routinely violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an automatic telephone dialing system and an artificial or prerecorded voice to place non-emergency calls to numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, without prior express consent, in that they place autodialed and prerecorded or artificial voice calls to wrong or reassigned telephone numbers. PayPal, Inc. operates a technology platform that enables individuals and businesses to send and receive payments online. The Company was incorporated in 1999 and is based in San Jose, California. Bill Me Later, Inc. provides PayPal Credit, a line of credit from Comenity Capital Bank that allows users to buy now and pay later. Its solution also allows users to send money and schedule future payments. The Company also provides a special financing solution that allows users to buy more and choose how the user wants to pay-in full, or by spreading out payments over time. Its PayPal Credit solution is available as a payment option at various online stores and offline. Bill Me Later was formerly known as I4 Commerce, Inc. and changed its name to Bill Me Later, Inc. in August 2007. The Company was founded in 2000 and is based in Timonium, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Morrison, Esq. ALEXANDER KRAKOW & GLICK LLP 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 394-0888 Facsimile: (310) 394-0811 E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com - and - Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 322-3912 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com PELICAN POINT: Court Denied Certification of Laborers Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled DAVID GROSS, on his own behalf and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PELICAN POINT SEAFOOD OF TARPON SPRINGS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01208-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody Jr. entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and facilitation of court-authorized Notice on behalf of: "current and former hourly-paid laborers who work(ed) at Defendant's location in Pinellas County, Florida between May 22, 2014 and the present; who worked hours for which they were not compensated, in some cases working more than 40 hours per week, without lawful and proper and complete overtime compensation"; and 2. dismissing opt-in Plaintiffs from the action without prejudice. The Court said, "Plaintiff's Declaration is insufficient to establish that there are other similarly situated employees because a class of "hourly-paid laborers" would presumably cover nearly every employee, despite the fact that Pelican Point is comprised of four separate departments, and the employees within those departments have different job titles and duties. For example, the majority of Pelican Point's employees work as "cashiers/front counter." The proposed class would potentially include the cashiers, to the extent that they were "non-exempt" and performed "labor" on an hourly basis. This is too broad. Moreover, Plaintiff's Declaration does not address how the individuals who opted-in this action are similarly situated to Plaintiff with respect to their job duties and responsibilities. Plaintiff was the only fish cutter. And Russell's Declaration states that the opt-in individuals were employed as "Shrimp Processers and/or Back of the House employees," which is different from the fish cutter job. Notably, this Court previously denied a plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a broad class of non-exempt "former hourly-paid laborers," and remarked that if "such a broad and inexact class of employees were sufficient to conditionally certify a class under the FLSA, the conditional-certification standard would not merely be a lenient one, but a meaningless one." See White v. SLM Staffing LLC, No. 8:16-CV-2057-T-30TBM, 2016 WL 4382777, at 2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2016). Likewise, Plaintiff's proposed class in this case is too expansive to meet the similarly-situated requirement. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=O0uqdgGa PERSONNEL STAFFING: Court to Continue "Haack" Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Roman Haack, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Personnel Staffing LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 02854 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Ronald A. Guzman entered an order continuing Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 9, 2017, Plaintiffs' motion for Fair Labor Standards Act conditional collective action as stated on the record to be filed by September 8, 2017. Response due by September 18, 2017. Reply due by September 25, 2017. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file response instanter to Defendants Personnel Staffing Group, LLC, Daniel S. Barnett, David Barnett Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss complaint as to them is granted. Reply due by August 21, 2017. Motion hearing set for August 15, 2017 is stricken and no appearance is required. Status hearing set for September 26, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ev2aV0P2 PETSMART INC: "Smadja" Suit Seeks to Certify 10 Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned LEA M. SMADJA, an individual, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees pursuant to the private attorney general act, the Plaintiff, v. PETSMART, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 Through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00379-SVW- JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on September 11, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. for an order to: 1. certify the following classes: Overtime Class: "all non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed by Defendant PETSMART, INC. ("PETSMART" or "DEFENDANT") in California as grooming salon employees, other than bathers, during the appropriate time period whom DEFENDANT failed to properly or timely pay overtime"; Meal Period Class All non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed by DEFENDANT in California as grooming salon employees during the appropriate time period whom DEFENDANT failed to authorize and permit the legally requisite meal periods"; Rest Period Class: "all non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed by DEFENDANT in California as grooming salon employees during the appropriate time period whom DEFENDANT failed to authorize and permit the legally requisite rest periods"; 226 Wage Statement Class "all non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed by DEFENDANT in California as grooming salon employees during the appropriate time period whom DEFENDANT failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code section 226"; 226.3 Wage Statement Class 2 all non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed by DEFENDANT in California as grooming salon employees during the appropriate time period whom DEFENDANT failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code section 226.3 Uniform Class "all non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed by DEFENDANT in California as grooming salon employees during the appropriate time period whom DEFENDANT failed to pay uniform maintenance"' Reimbursement Class "all non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed by DEFENDANT in California as grooming salon employees other than bathers during the appropriate time period whom DEFENDANT failed to fully reimburse work expenses"; Withheld Wage Class "all non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed by DEFENDANT in California as grooming salon employees during the appropriate time period whom DEFENDANT unlawfully withheld wages LC 201 Class "all non-exempt individuals formerly employed by DEFENDANT in California as grooming salon employees during the appropriate time period whom DEFENDANT willfully failed to timely pay any and all wages"; California's Unfair Competition Law Class "non-exempt individuals employed and formerly employed by DEFENDANT in California as grooming salon employees under California's Unfair Competition Law" 2. create a sub-class of all Grooming Salon Employees and a sub-class of Grooming Salon Employees other than Bathers; 3. appoint Lea Smadja as Class Representative; 4. appoint Ophir J. Bitton of Bitton & Associates, Class Counsel; and 5. send notice to certified class members advising them of this action. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KtCWnyfV The Plaintiff is represented by: Ophir J. Bitton, Esq. Cesar G. Lachica, Jr., Esq. BITTON & ASSOCIATES 7220 Melrose Avenue, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90046 Telephone: (310) 356 1006 Facsimile: (818) 524 1224 E-mail: ophir@bittonlaw.com cesar@bittonlaw.com PLACE FOR MOM: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over TCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Boysen, writing for Law360, reports that senior housing referral service A Place For Mom Inc. was slapped with a proposed class action in Illinois federal court on Aug. 7 over its alleged practice of "bombarding" consumers with automatic calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Consumers who enter their contact information on the service's website are warned only by a "Lilliputian" caption that they'll be called immediately after doing so, Andrew Kim says in his complaint. Mr. Kim used the service for the first time in July and quickly "received an autodialed telemarketing call" that "was annoying and harassing . . . and an invasion of his privacy." He says the service has violated the TCPA because the small- lettered consent message on the bottom of its website doesn't constitute the "reasonable notice" required for the use of autodialers. "The search page is designed in such a manner so that the consumer provides his or her phone number . . . without ever receiving notice that the consumer is agreeing to be contacted via prerecorded or autodialed calls," Mr. Kim says. "Defendant's autodialer authorization thus fails to meet the thresholds" mandated by the TCPA. Mr. Kim is seeking to certify a class of everyone in the U.S. who provided their number to the service and received an autodialed call, an alleged violation of the TCPA that Kim says is worth $500 a pop. He estimates the proposed class contains "thousands" of members and called his suit just one prong in a campaign to bring "about an end to the rampant violations" of the TCPA "that occur within the sphere of the online 'lead' generating industry." A Place For Mom works with users to provide information about assisted living facilities nearby, refers the leads generated to those facilities and then receives a commission if and when seniors ultimately enroll, the suit says. The service's website prominently displays a large box that asks consumers to give their name, location and phone number before clicking a button that says "Start Your Search." Shortly after clicking the button, users receive a call from a representative with A Place For Mom. In small font at the bottom of the site there is a caption that reads, in full: "We value your privacy. By clicking you agree to the terms and conditions of our privacy policy. You also consent that we can reach out to you using a phone system that can auto- dial numbers (we miss rotary telephones, too!). Your consent is not required to use our service." Mr. Kim says the "barely legible" paragraph isn't good enough, however, because the site's design leaves users with "no reason to suspect that he or she is agreeing to be contacted" via an autodialed phone call. The TCPA expressly forbids the use of autodial systems unless prior notice is provided and consent is given, or in emergency situations. "Not surprisingly, defendant's unlawful practices have led to significant backlash from consumers across the country," Kim says, citing one other lawsuit, Erickson v. A Place For Mom Inc., in Washington district court. That suit, also a prospective class action, claims plaintiff Robert Erickson was called several times by A Place Called Mom despite never entering his information through the website in the first place. It was filed in May 2016 and ended last August after both parties agreed to a dismissal, though it's not clear why. The attorneys on that case don't appear to be involved in Mr. Kim's case. In his suit, Mr. Erickson cited several postings from the phone call watchdog forum 800notes.com, with posters complaining about calls received from A Place Called Mom. "They must call 3-4 times a day and do not leave a message," one posting reads. "My parents have been dead for almost 10 years, my wife's parents even longer. No clue why they think I or my wife need senior care." Neither party responded on Aug. 7 to requests for comment. Mr. Kim is represented by Gary M. Klinger -- gklinger@kozonislaw.com -- and Ryan F. Sullivan -- rsullivan@kozonislaw.com -- of Kozonis Law Ltd., and Jonathan D. Selbsin and Daniel M. Hutchinson of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP. Counsel information for A Place For Mom was not immediately available. The case is Kim v. A Place For Mom, Inc., Case No.1:17-cv-05716 (N.D. Ill.). The case is assigned to Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer. The case was filed August 7, 2017. [GN] PLANET FITNESS: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. of Fla. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Planet Fitness, Inc. The case is styled as Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Planet Fitness, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-23002-KMW (S.D. Fla., August 8, 2017). The Defendants are "one of the largest and fastest-growing franchisors and operators of fitness centers in the United States by number of members and locations" with more than 8.9 million members and 1,300 total locations worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq. Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group 333 Las Olas Way, Suite CU3-311 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 282-1858 Fax: (844) 786-3694 Email: service@advocacypa.com PREMIUM ASSET: Initial Status Hearing Set for Sept. 19 ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled Nicholas Navarroli, the Plaintiff, v. Premium Asset Services LLC,, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05483 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan entered an order striking Plaintiff's motion to certify class without prejudice to reinstate or file a new motion at a later date. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 3, 2017, Plaintiff's motion to continue is stricken as moot. Initial status hearing is set for September 19, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. At least four working days before the initial status hearing, the parties shall conduct a FRCP 26(f) conference and file a joint written Initial Status Report, not to exceed five pages in length, and file the Court's Joint Jurisdictional Status Report and deliver courtesy copies to this Court's Courtroom Deputy in Room 1908. The Court's standing orders on the Initial Status Report and Joint Jurisdictional Status Report maybe obtained from Judge Der-Yeghiayan's web page or from this Court's Courtroom Deputy. Counsel for the Plaintiff is warned that failure to serve summons and complaint on Defendants will result in a dismissal of the action and/or a dismissal of that Defendant not properly served pursuant to FRCP Counsel for Plaintiff is further directed to file with the Clerk of Court, the appropriate returns of service and/or waivers of service. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bzPHbdHM PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Certified in "Pettit" Charmin Wipes Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JAMIE PETTIT, the Plaintiff, v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-02150-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting certification of: "[a]ll persons who, between April 6, 2011 and the [date of class certification], purchased in California the Charmin Freshmates Flushable Wipes (excluding purchases for purpose of resale)". A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jhx3JT9D PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT: Court Denies Certification in "Wood" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Vanessa L. Bryant of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned LEONARD WOOD II and MAYA SHAW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-1785 (VLB)(D. Conn.). Plaintiff Shaw, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, brings this action against Defendant Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company ("PRIAC"), alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1973 ("ERISA"). They allege that the Defendant sets the crediting rate well below its internal rate of return on the invested capital it holds through the Guaranteed Income Fund ("GIF") and/or Principal Preservation Separate Account ("PPSA") and therefore guarantees a substantial profit for itself. The Defendant calculates, but does not disclose to its retirement plan clients and their participants the difference between the crediting rate and its internal rate of return. The Plaintiffs therefore allege that the Defendant collects tens of millions of dollars annually in undisclosed compensation from the retirement plans in violation of its fiduciary duties under Section 502 of the ERISA. The Plaintiff seeks certification of class of all ERISA-covered employee benefit plans whose plan assets were invested in PRIAC's GIF and/or PPSA on or after Dec. 3, 2009. The Court explains that determining whether PRIAC breached any fiduciary duty is similarly unsuited to classwide resolution. As with the question of whether the GIF minimum offered a "reasonable rate of return," variables among plans render unmanageable any attempt to reach classwide conclusions regarding the reasonableness of the spread. The difficulty of reaching classwide conclusions regarding whether PRIAC acted as a fiduciary or breached any fiduciary duty therefore prevents the Court from finding that the commonality prerequisite has been met. The Court finds that unlike investments in an insurer's general account, gains and losses within separate accounts cannot be offset by the performance of other investments. They therefore do not involve the same set of concerns. The Plaintiff has therefore failed to show that her claims or defenses are typical of those of the proposed class. And because the Plaintiff is unable to seek prospective injunctive relief and has not persuaded the Court that injunctive relief would never advance the interests of any class member or subclass, she cannot adequately represent the interests of current plan participants. Because the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation prerequisites, the Court needs not determine whether the proposed class could satisfy any of the Rule 23(b) factors. For these reasons, the Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/yPBFNX from Leagle.com. Maya Shaw, Plaintiff, represented by Mark P. Kindall -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP. Maya Shaw, Plaintiff, represented by Michael L. Murphy, Bailey & Glasser LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Barrett -- cbarrett@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP & Robert A. Izard, Jr. -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP. Prudential Retirement Ins & Annuity Co, Defendant, represented by Daniel R. Thies -- DTHIES@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, James T. Shearin, Pullman & Comley, Joel S. Feldman -- JFELDMAN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Kathleen L. Carlson -- KATHLEEN.CARLSON@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Mark B. Blocker -- MBLOCKER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Tara A. Amin -- TAMIN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin, LLP, pro hac vice & Edward B. Lefebvre -- tlefebvre@pullcom.com -- Pullman & Comley. QUALITY SYSTEMS: 9th Cir. Revives Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on July 28, 2017, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court decision dismissing a putative class action lawsuit against Quality Systems, Inc., ("QSI" or the "Company"), a company that develops and markets management software for medical and dental providers, and several of its officers. In re Quality Systems, Inc. Secs. Litig., No. 15-55173 (9th Cir. July 28, 2017). Plaintiffs brought a putative shareholder class action against defendants alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b- 5 in connection with statements made over the course of several months regarding the Company's past and projected sales as well as guidance given to investors about the Company's projected growth and revenue. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that many of the defendants' statements "mixed" forward and non-forward looking statements and holding for the first time in the Ninth Circuit that it is appropriate to consider the forward and non-forward looking aspects of a "mixed" statement separately when evaluating a securities claim. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements at various healthcare conferences and on analyst calls regarding its sales "pipeline," including sales that were expected to close with 70% certainty within eight months, and that the Company's stock price dropped significantly when QCI eventually issued a press release announcing a steep decline in earnings and stating that it could not affirm its previous guidance. Plaintiffs also alleged--through statements attributed to several confidential witnesses--that defendants had access to updated sales pipeline information and knew that sales were declining. Reviewing the complaint de novo, the Court categorized the statements at issue as either "mixed statements" containing "mixed" forward and non-forward looking statements about revenue and earnings or non-forward-looking statements about the Company's sales pipeline. With respect to the "mixed statements," the Court held that a defendant may not transform non-forward looking statements into forward looking statements protected by the PSLRA safe harbor by combining forward and non-forward looking, and that non-forward statements must be evaluated separately from coincidental forward-looking statements. The Court then found that statements regarding the sales pipeline were non-forward- looking statements that "affirmatively created an impression of a state of affairs that differed in a material way from the one that actually existed." The Court also rejected arguments these statements were corporate puffery or "feel good" optimistic statements because they "provided a concrete description of the past and present state of the pipeline." In addition, the Court found that the allegations -- including statements attributed to confidential witnesses -- sufficed to give rise to a strong inference of scienter because they established that defendants had access to and used sales pipeline reports documenting in real time the decline in sales during the relevant period. This decision serves as a reminder that the PSLRA safe harbor may not extend to non-forward looking statements that are mixed with forward-looking statements and that such "mixed" statements may be subject to parsing by courts. [GN] QUIZNO'S MASTER: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. of Fla. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Quizno's Master, LLC. The case is styled as Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Quizno's Master, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-22998-FAM (S.D. Fla., August 8, 2017). The Quizno's Master LLC owns and operates restaurants that offer made-to-order oven-toasted sandwiches.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq. Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group 333 Las Olas Way, Suite CU3-311 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 282-1858 Fax: (844) 786-3694 Email: service@advocacypa.com REV GROUP: Faces "Morales" Suit in Central Dist. of Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against REV Group, Inc. The case is styled as Marvin Morales, an individual, and all other similarly situated employees and Halcore Group, Inc., an Indiana corporation dba Leader Emergency Vehicles, Plaintiffs v. REV Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05876 (C.D. Cal., August 8, 2017). REV Group is an American manufacturer of specialty vehicles the in Fire & Emergency, Recreational Vehicles, and Bus & Industrial sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. REV-1 SOLUTIONS: Court Denied Bid to Certify Class as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DEBORAH OZIER, the Plaintiff, v. REV-1 SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00118-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to file additional authority in opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss; 2. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss; 3. dismissing Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice; 4. denying Plaintiff's motion to certify class as moot; and 5. directing Clerk of the Court to enter judgment accordingly. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EFrlYVJj RIEMER INSURANCE: "Paz" Suit Removed to S. Dist. of Fla. -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Regla Paz and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Riemer Insurance Group, Inc. a Florida Profit Corporation, Stephen L. Riemer, individually, Paul riemer, individually, Defendants, Case No. CACE-17012046 was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale) on August 7, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-61575-BB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Beth Bloom. Riemer Insurance Group, Inc. operates in the insurance industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. Remer & Georges-Pierre, PLLC Courthouse Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 416-5000 Fax: (305) 416-5005 Email: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com - and - Jason Saul Remer, Esq. Remer& Georges-Pierre, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, Fl 33130 Tel: (305) 416-5000 Fax: (305) 416-5005 Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com - and - Tyler Aaron Stull, Esq. Remer & Georges-Pierre, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 416-5000 Email: ts@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Angel Castillo, Jr., Esq. DLD Lawyers 12th Floor 806 Douglas Road Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 443-4850 Fax: (305) 443-5960 Email: acastillo@dldlawyers.com RIVERSIDE, CA: Class Status Sought in Juvenile Custody Case ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned A.A., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a public entity; KARLA TORRES and FELICIA BUTLER, individuals, together with all others similarly situated, the Defendants, Case No. 5:14-cv-02556-VAP-SP (C.D. Cal.), Plaintiff will move the Court on October 16, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., for an order certifying the action as a class for injunctive relief for: "all children that were seized, or are likely to be seized from their parent's custody, and monetary relief for children who were removed from their parent's custody by the County without judicial authorization based on neglect". This action challenges the County of Riverside's constitutionally deficient policies and practices of refusing to obtain judicial authorization before removing a child from his or her parents' custody, under circumstances where that child was not in immediate danger of suffering serious bodily injury or death. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9QLWazfQ The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. McMillan, Esq. Stephen D. Daner, Esq. Adrian M. Paris, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN A. MCMILLAN, APC 4955 Via Lapiz San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 646 0069 Facsimile: (858) 746 5283 E-mail: attyshawn@netscape.net steve.mcmillanlaw@gmail.com adrian.mcmillanlaw@gmail.com - and - Mark Ankcorn, Esq. ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PLLC 1060 Woodcock Road, Suite 128 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (619) 870 0600 Facsimile: (619) 684 3541 E-mail: mark@ankcorn.com SAFEWAY INC: 9th Cir. Affirms $42M Judgment in "Rodman" Case ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's class action judgment of nearly $42 million in the case captioned MICHAEL RODMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAFEWAY, INC., Defendant-Appellant, No. 15-17390(9th Cir.). The Defendant appeals the district court's class action judgment of nearly $42 million this case arising out of an online grocery shopping program initiated in 2001. The judgment was entered after the court certified the class, granted summary judgment on both the disputed legal issues relating to contract interpretation, and on Safeway's affirmative defense of voluntary payment. Safeway then entered into a stipulated judgment as to any remaining issues in order to facilitate this appeal. The appeal centers around whether Safeway promised its customers price parity between online and physical stores. The parties dispute the meaning of the product pricing clause in the Special Terms governing online grocery sales. The clause states that the prices quoted on their web site at the time of a customer's order are estimated prices only. The customer will be charged the prices quoted for Products he has selected for purchase at the time his order is processed at checkout. The actual order value cannot be determined until the day of delivery because the prices quoted on the web site are likely to vary either above or below the prices in the store on the date the order is filled and delivered. The Court held that the district court correctly determined that the modification clause in the Special Terms did not allow Safeway to unilaterally amend the Special Terms without notice. Safeway cites no authority from California law suggesting that a merchant may modify a consumer contract and bind the consumer without any form of notice. It also held that there was no error in certifying the class because the legal issues pertain to all class members. This case therefore materially differs from Avritt v. Reliastar Life Insurance Co. Accordingly, the Court affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/dAGTot from Leagle.com. SAN DIEGO, CA: Kries Files Suit Over Regular Rate of Pay -------------------------------------------------------- DAVID K. KRIES, and GARY MONDESIR, on behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF SAN DIEGO; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01464-BEN-BGS (S.D. Cal., July 19, 2017), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the case, Defendant City has failed to correctly calculate the "regular rate" of pay for plaintiffs and others similarly situated. The City's failure to correctly calculate the regular rate was caused by, among other things, failing to include cash paid to the plaintiffs, and other similarly situated, in lieu of providing or paying medical and related insurance premiums under the City's flexible benefits plan. The plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, worked overtime for the City in the three-year period before the filing of this complaint. The amount paid by the City for this overtime was too low because the City had failed to properly calculate the regular rate of pay on which the overtime rate was calculated. San Diego is a major city in California, United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Conger, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. CONGER 16236 San Dieguito Road, Suite 4-14 P.O. Box 9374 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Phone: (858) 759-0200 Fax: (858) 759-1906 Email: congermike@aol.com SANTANDER BANK: "Karlberg" Suit Moved to E.D. Penn. --------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Drew Karlberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Santander Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 170403795 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on August 9, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-03561-HB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Honorable Harvey Bartle, III. Santander Bank provides banking products and services. It offers personal checking accounts, savings and money market accounts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Senoff, Esq. Anapol Weiss One Logan Square 130 North 18th Street, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 735-1130 Email: dsenoff@anapolweiss.com - and - Michael D. Shaffer, Esq. SHAFFER& GAIER LLC 8 PENN CENTER SUITE 400 1628 JOHN F KENNEDY BLVD PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 751-0100 Fax: (215) 751-0723 Email: mshaffer@shaffergaier.com The Defendant is represented by: Fred W. Hoensch, Esq. Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLC 1635 Market Street, 11th Floor PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 Tel: (267) 908-9800 Fax: (267) 908-9888 Email: fred.hoensch@piblaw.com SEALIFT HOLDINGS: "Llagas" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled DANIEL GONZALES LLAGAS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. SEALIFT HOLDINGS INC. ET AL., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00472-PM-KK (W.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to: 1. certify this case as class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. appoint Plaintiff as class representative of the Class; and 3. appoint Richard J. Dodson and Kenneth H. Hooks, III as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BaFsC7bz The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth H. Hooks, III, Esq. Richard J. Dodson, Esq. Michael A. Colomb, Esq. H. Price Mounger, III, Esq. DODSON & HOOKS, LLC 112 Founders Drive Baton Rouge, LA 70810 Telephone: 225 756 0222 Facsimile: 225 756 0025 SEARS PROTECTION: Court Denied Bid to File Materials under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Nina Greene, et al., the Plaintiff, v. Sears Protection Company, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15- cv-02546 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jorge L. Alonso entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion to file materials under seal is denied. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 3, 2017, Case called on Plaintiff's motion to file materials under seal, parties failed to appear. There is no substantive argument as to why the materials should be sealed. Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification is taken under advisement. The court will rule electronically and set further dates in the ruling. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z0dTHiWy SMILE BRANDS: Faces "Polanco" Suit Over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO POLANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SMILE BRANDS FINANCE, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05380 (C.D. Cal., July 20, 2017), results from the alleged illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, thereby violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. SMILE BRANDS FINANCE, INC. is a dental finance company engaged in collection activity in connection with debts allegedly owed to it.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com SPANDEX HOUSE: Sued by Sullivan for Minimum Wage & OT Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN SULLIVAN and JASON DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. SPANDEX HOUSE, INC.; NEW YORK THEATRICAL SUPPLY INC.; and SABUDH NATH, in his individual and corporate capacity, Case No. 1:17-cv-05929 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the minimum wage and overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Spandex House and New York Theatrical Supply are incorporated organizations, organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York, with their principal place of business located at 263 W 38th Street, in New York City. The Corporate Defendants are owned and/or operated by Sabudh Nath. According to its Web site, Spandex House is a specialized source of Stretch Fabrics and is one of the largest spandex suppliers in the world. Spandex House maintains the largest selection of Spandex and Lycra(R).[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Weisenberg, Esq. THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C. 401 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 571-2000 Facsimile: (212) 571-0505 E-mail: benjamin@ottingerlaw.com SPECIALIZED LOAN: Sept. 20 Hearing on Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Marcus Mason, the Plaintiff, v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05607 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order continuing motion to certify class. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 3, 2017, the motion hearing set for August 7 is stricken. Another Status hearing set for September 20 at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PgEKC8zf ST. LOUIS RAMS: Arnold Seeks to Certify Ticket Holders Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled RICHARD ARNOLD, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. THE ST. LOUIS RAMS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00172- SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), Richard Arnold, R. McNeeley Cochran, and Brad Pearlman (collectively "Arnold") ask the Court to certify a Rams Class and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) subclass. The Rams Class is defined as: "A) all persons or entities who: 1) purchased PSLs directly from the Rams; or 2) had any Rams or FANS PSL transferred to them; or 3) upgraded their PSL tier; and B) purchased Rams season tickets through their PSLs for the 2015 season; or C) did not purchase Rams season tickets for the 2015 season but did not receive a PSL cancellation notice from the Rams". The MMPA subclass is defined as: "all natural persons who are members of the Rams Class who purchased PSLs primarily for personal, family or household purposes". Arnold also moves the Court that: 1. Arnold, Cochran, and Pearlman be appointed as class representatives for the class and the subclass; and 2. Fernando Bermudez and Martin M. Greenbe jointly appointed as class counsel for the class and the subclass; A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OAldPA8A The Plaintiffs are represented by: Fernando Bermudez, Esq. BERMUDEZ LAW STL, LLC 7701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 950 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: 314 339 3082 E-mail: fbermudez@bermudezlawstl.com - and - Martin M. Green, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN M. GREEN, P.C. 7701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 950 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 862 6800 Facsimile: (314) 862 1606 E-mail: green@martingreenpc.com ST. LOUIS RAMS: Envision et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled RONALD MCALLISTER, the Plaintiff, v. THE ST. LOUIS RAMS, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00172-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs Envision, L.L.C., Robert Bohm, Sue Bohm, and Edward Mock move the Court for certification of these Class and Subclasses: Class: "all persons or entities who possessed PSLs subject to the Rams' Agreement, and who continued to be PSL owners through, and purchased season tickets for, the 2015 season"; Charter Subclass: "all persons or entities who purchased one or more PSLs directly from the St. Louis Rams, and who continued to be PSL owners through, and who purchased season tickets for, the 2015 season; Upgrade Subclass. All persons, or entities who originally signed a PSL Agreement with FANS, Inc. or the Rams, and later upgraded their PSLs, and who continued to be PSL owners through, and purchased season tickets for, the 2015 season"; Transfer Subclass: "all persons or entities who took transfer of one or more PSLs after September 1, 1995, whose interest in the PSLs was recorded on the books and records of the Rams, and who continued to be PSL owners through, and purchased season tickets, for the 2015 season; and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act Subclass: "all natural persons who are members of the Class (excluding entities because, pursuant to the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), section 407.025.1, RSMo, damages are only recoverable by persons who purchase or lease merchandise "primarily for personal, family or household purposes"); A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vBmVWsHp Attorneys for Plaintiffs Envision, Bohm, And Mock: David R. Bohm, Esq. Robert L. Devereux, Esq. Jeffrey R. Schmitt, Esq. Michael R. Cherba, Esq. DANNA MCKITRICK, P.C. 7701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63105 3907 Telephone: (314) 726 1000 Facsimile: (314) 725 6592 E-mail: dbohm@dmfirm.com rdevereux@dmfirm.com jschmitt@dmfirm.com mcherba@dmfirm.com SYSCO CORP: Must Produce Docs in "Frieri" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned RICK FRIERI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. SYSCO CORPORATION; SYSCO SAN DIEGO, INC.; AND DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents propounded to the Defendant. This case presents a putative state-wide class action of truck drivers for alleged wage and hour violations while employed as drivers for the Defendants. Frieri seeks discovery to support certification of the class. His motion for class certification is due to be filed by Nov. 10, 2017. The Plaintiff propounded interrogatories and two sets of requests for production of documents on the Defendant on Feb. 14, 2017. His interrogatories seek contact and other information relating to the putative class members. His document requests primarily aim to collect documents to establish a joint employer relationship between the two Named Defendants. Following some extensions, the Defendant responded to the discovery requests on May 24, 2017. The parties engaged in some meet and confer efforts, but were ultimately unable to resolve the disputes now presented to the Court. Magistrate Judge Stormes held that this is the second discovery dispute in this matter whereby the Plaintiff seeks to compel production of voluminous documents in response to broad requests without any indication of pursuit of other forms of discovery likely to yield the information sought at reduced cost and with expenditure of fewer resources by the parties and the Court. Therefore, in the event that the Plaintiff initiates a third discovery dispute before the Court, he must first either (i) demonstrate that he has taken the deposition of a corporate representative; or (ii) file an ex parte request for leave to file a discovery dispute, explaining in no more than 5 pages why a deposition would not affect the content of the discovery dispute he wishes to file. For these reasons, she granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to compel consistent with the terms as set forth in her Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/R7sRQi from Leagle.com. Rick Frieri, Plaintiff, represented by William D. Turley -- bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley Law Firm, APLC. Rick Frieri, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Evan Crawford, The Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC. Sysco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Julie Kwun -- jkwun@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hosteler, LLP, Margaret Rosenthal -- mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, Sabrina Layne Shadi -- sshadi@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP & Vartan S. Madoyan -- vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP. Sysco San Diego, Inc., Defendant, represented by Julie Kwun, Baker & Hosteler, LLP, Margaret Rosenthal, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Sabrina Layne Shadi, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Vartan S. Madoyan, Baker and Hostetler LLP. TAKATA CORP: "Krmpotic" Suit Transferred to S.D. of Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Branko Krmpotic and Susan Knapp individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Takata Corporation, TK Holdings Inc., Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company and Daimler AG a foreign corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04771, filed on July 28, 2017, in New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on July 31, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-22870-FAM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Federico A. Moreno and Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff. Takata Corporation manufactures and sells automotive safety systems for automakers worldwide. It offers seat belts, including webbings, retractors, and buckles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq. Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody &Agnello, P>C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068-1741 Tel: (973) 994-1700 Email: cbartlett@carellabyrne.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068-1739 Tel: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com TAMPA BAY SURGERY: Stapleton et al. Seek to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JANIE STAPLETON, on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor child, C.P. DAVID PACKEN, on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor child, D.J., and CARMELO ALVAREZ, JR. on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor child, K.R.A., the Plaintiffs, v. TAMPA BAY SURGERY CENTER, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01540-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for class certification. This class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other persons similarly situated against Defendant, Tampa Bay Surgery Center, Inc. (TBSCI) because of its failure to adequately protect its patient's confidential personal information and/or private personal, medical and/or financial information -- Sensitive Information -- which led to the loss, disclosure and/or breach of such information resulting in violation of their and the putative class's federal and state constitutional rights, rights under the laws of the United States and the State of Florida, and damages. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7qBh3Ys1 The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. Jason M. Melton, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC One Progress Plaza 200 Central Avenue, #400 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 822 1111 Facsimile: (727) 898 2001 E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com kmoran@theFLlawfirm.com TIME WARNER: Dismissal of "Groshek" FCRA Class Action Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- John Raffetto, Esq., of Goodwin, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of two Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) class actions on Spokeo grounds. The cases, which were consolidated for appeal, were filed by the same plaintiff against two corporate defendants alleged to have provided credit-report disclosures that did not comply with the FCRA. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of Groshek v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. and Groshek v. Great Lakes Higher Education Corp. (together, "Groshek") because it concluded plaintiff failed to adequately allege any concrete injury. The decision has strategic implications for defendants considering whether to seek dismissal of similar FCRA cases and for those planning defenses to certification motions. As relevant to Groshek, the FCRA requires prospective employers who plan to pull a job applicant's credit report as part of the application process to disclose this to the applicant. Among other things, the disclosure must be "clear and conspicuous" and must appear in a document that consists only of the disclosure. The applicant must also authorize the employer to pull the report. In Groshek, plaintiff alleged that defendants' disclosures appeared in forms that contained information extraneous to the disclosure. Defendants moved to dismiss claiming plaintiff lacked standing because he had not suffered a concrete injury. Citing Spokeo v. Robins, defendants argued that plaintiff's only injury was the violation of a procedural right. Plaintiff argued that he suffered a concrete injury because defendants' alleged failure to provide him with a compliant disclosure was a failure to provide information required by the FCRA. The Seventh Circuit rejected this argument because it concluded the alleged withholding of information was not the kind of injury the FCRA was designed to protect. The Seventh Circuit held that the FCRA does not seek to protect individuals from the receipt of a non-compliant disclosure, rather, Congress's purpose was to protect privacy by ensuring that job applicants only knowingly consent to the pulling of their credit reports. Plaintiff also argued that he suffered a privacy injury because the defective disclosures meant he never provided valid authorization, and defendants' procurement of his credit report was therefore an invasion of his privacy. The Seventh Circuit rejected this argument as well, holding that plaintiff's admission that he signed authorization forms coupled with his failure to allege that the non-conforming disclosure misled or confused him demonstrated that he suffered no invasion of privacy. In deciding the case, the Seventh Circuit recognized the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Syed v. M-I, LLC, where the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a similar FCRA claim because of allegations that the plaintiff was confused by the disclosure and would not have signed it had it been clear. The Seventh Circuit concluded Syed was inapposite because Groshek had not included any similar allegations, choosing instead to rest his case on the bare claim that the disclosure did not comply with the FCRA. For defendants considering whether and how to seek dismissal of similar FCRA claims, Groshek provides persuasive authority that mere allegations of statutory failings are insufficient to establish concrete Article III injury. Groshek demonstrates that, absent some claim that a procedural failing led to some specific injury, the plaintiff lacks standing. But Groshek also potentially provides some assistance for defendants facing class certification motions in similar FCRA cases. The distinction drawn by the Seventh Circuit between Syed and Groshek depends upon facts unique to the Syed plaintiff, and suggests that individualized issues related to standing could derail certification efforts in such cases. [GN] TOWNCREST PHARMACY: 9th Cir. Approves Class Action in Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------------- Liz Kramer, Esq. -- liz.kramer@stinson.com -- of Stinson Leonard Street LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that class action arbitration continues to be a hot topic among the federal appellate courts this summer. The 8th Circuit followed the lead of other circuit courts, finding that courts, not arbitrators, presumptively decide whether the parties' arbitration agreement allows for class arbitration. Catamaran Corporation v. Towncrest Pharmacy, 2017 WL 3197622 (July 28, 2017). In support of its decision, the court raised concerns about class arbitration, including loss of confidentiality, due process concerns for absent parties, and a concern about the lack of appellate review. [Interesting that it didn't cite any of CFPB's report on this, but just cited other case law . . . ] Therefore, unless the parties have "clearly and unmistakably delegated" the class arbitration issue to the arbitrator, a court will decide the issue. Furthermore, the court said that incorporating the AAA rules is not a clear and unmistakable delegation of the class arbitration decision, even though citing the AAA rules is sufficiently clear in analogous issues in regular "bilateral arbitration." The court remanded to the district court to determine whether there was a contractual basis for class arbitration. Halfway across the country, the 9th Circuit held that employees could bring their claims related to a data breach as a class action in arbitration. Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 2017 WL 3309944 (Aug. 3, 2017). The employees had first brought their class claims to federal court, and the employer moved to compel individual arbitration. The district court found the arbitration agreement was valid, but ambiguous about whether class actions were waived. Construing that ambiguity against the employer who drafted the agreement, the district court ordered class arbitration. On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed the finding of ambiguity, sending the class to arbitration as a group. One judge issued a two sentence dissent, noting "we should not allow Varela to enlist us in this palpable evasion of Stolt-Nielsen." [GN] TWO JINNS: Bid for Class Certification Granted in "Shelby" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned GAYLA SHELBY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TWO JINNS, INC. DBA ALADDIN BAIL BONDS, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-03794-AB- GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification and final approval of the class settlement. The Court also granted Plaintiff's motion for fees, including: 1. attorneys' fees in the amount of $114,250.00; 2. reimbursement of litigation costs in the amount of $4,903.56; 3. reimbursement of administrative costs in the amount of $37,411.00; and 4. incentive award in the amount of $2,500.00. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=srsHBt48 UAG STEVENS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The San Francisco employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on Aug. 7 disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit alleging that UAG Stevens Creek II, Inc. failed to provide their California automotive sales employees with meal and rest periods in accordance with the California Wage Order and Labor Code. The UAG Stevens Creek II, Inc. class action lawsuit, Case No. 17CV313457 is currently pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court for the State of California. According to the lawsuit, UAG Stevens Creek II, Inc. allegedly failed to provide all employees the legally required off-duty meal breaks as required by the applicable Wage Order and Labor Code. The Complaint further claims that UAG Stevens Creek II, Inc. allegedly failed to accurately record missed meal and rest breaks and also allegedly failed to pay the proper minimum wages causing the wage statements being issued to the employees by UAG Stevens Creek II, Inc. to allegedly violate California law, and in particular, Labor Code Section 226(a). Additionally, the Complaint alleges that UAG Stevens Creek II, Inc. committed acts of unfair competition by engaging in a company-wide policy and procedure which fails to accurately calculate and record all missed meal breaks and fails to pay employees for rest periods as required by California law and is in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17200. If you would like to know more about the UAG Stevens Creek II, Inc. lawsuit, please contact attorney Nicholas De Blouw today by calling (800) 568-8020. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with offices located in San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Medical Records Class Action Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- Bennett Loudon, writing for Rochester Business Journal, reports that a federal judge has certified a class action lawsuit claiming patients were overcharged for copies of their medical records in violation of New York state law. The defendants are the University of Rochester, Strong Memorial Hospital and Highland Hospital -- both operated by UR Medicine -- and Verisma Systems Inc., which manages UR Medicine's medical records. "Defendants have systematically violated New York law by manipulating charges for medical records, and by charging artificially inflated amounts to plaintiffs and other class members," according to the complaint. "These artificially inflated amounts exceed the actual cost of producing such records and include built-in kickbacks from Verisma to the health provider defendants and other health care providers in New York," according to the complaint. In a 21-page decision issued July 28, Senior U.S. District Court Judge Michael S. Telesca certified the class to include all patients who requested medical records from a health care facility owned or operated by the UR and were charged through Verisma on or after May 14, 2011. Telesca also certified two subclasses: People who sought and received records from Highland and Strong hospitals on or after May 14, 2011. According to the complaint, the classes include hundreds of people. The plaintiffs are seeking actual damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees and expenses. The class representative plaintiffs are: Ann McCracken, of Rochester; Joan Farrell, of Avon, Livingston County; Sarah Stilson, of Canandaigua; Kevin McCloskey, of Brockport; Christopher Trapatsos, of Fairport; and Kimberly Bailey, of Shortsville, Ontario County. "The University makes no profit from the copying of medical records, and does not control what Verisma charges for records. The certification of the class is one step in a lawsuit the University intends to continue to defend vigorously," Chip Partner, spokesperson for the University of Rochester Medical Center, said in an email. New York law caps the amount of money that can be charged for copies of medical records at the actual cost to produce the records or 75 cents per page, whichever is less. The suit claims patients are charged the maximum and the profit is split between Verisma and the company's clients. "Verisma has reaped most of the economic benefit of their scheme, but the University of Rochester has also received a big indirect economic benefit in the form of free services from Verisma, and that's what we intend to prove at trial," said Kathryn Lee Bruns, an attorney with Faraci Lange LLP, the firm Telesca named class counsel. For example, in 2011 and 2012, McCracken was charged $431.70 for 569 pages of medical records, which was 75 cents per page, plus shipping and handling fees, according to the complaint. Verisma provided 148 pages of records on paper, printed from electronic files. The other records were provided in electronic format through an online portal. "We're in the process of working through an expert analysis of what we believe the actual costs were. At this point we believe it's at least less than half of 75 cents per page," Ms. Bruns said. Verisma officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Seeks Dismissal of Fraud Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Salls, writing for Northern California Record, reports that the University of Southern California is asking the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against the university and 10 unnamed "Doe" defendants amid allegations that the plaintiffs' credit card information was compromised because more than five digits of the card numbers were printed on receipts. The credit card information was allegedly printed on receipts generated by one or more of the university's retail locations. In its June 22 motion to dismiss, the university said the "plaintiffs' complaint offers only boilerplate allegations asserting violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA)." "Like many cut-and-paste FACTA complaints, these allegations fail to establish that plaintiffs suffered actual harm or that a willful violation of FACTA was committed," the motion said. Southern California said Congress passed a subsequent law after FACTA was passed, clarifying that the purpose of FACTA was to protect consumers from "any actual harm to their credit or identity" and to curb the amount of frivolous lawsuit filed after FACTA became law. As a result, the university said in the motion that "numerous courts have since explored the requirement of 'actual harm' within the context of FACTA and have held that plaintiffs must allege more than mere statutory violations under the act to establish such harm." According to the motion, the plaintiffs do not actually say in their class action lawsuit that their credit card information was stolen or "much less viewed" by anyone who should not have access to it. In addition, USC said "what few allegations plaintiffs provide are so generic that they could apply to nearly any business," and the arguments that are presented by the plaintiffs actually show that USC and the other defendants did not intentionally compromise the plaintiffs' credit card information. However, the motion to dismiss said the plaintiffs argued in their lawsuit that USC "knew of or should have known of, and were informed about" the provisions of FACTA. A hearing on the dismissal motion is scheduled for Sept. 7. [GN] VERMONT: Whistleblower Deposition Request in EB-5 Case Quashed -------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Galloway, writing for VTDigger, reports that a judge has ruled that, for now, defrauded EB-5 investors in a class action lawsuit against the state cannot take the deposition of a key whistleblower in the case. Lamoille County Superior Court Judge Thomas Carlson quashed the plaintiffs' request for the deposition of Douglas Hulme, citing state rules prohibiting discovery until the defense has an opportunity to respond. The plaintiffs allege that the state was complicit in allowing 800 investors to be systematically defrauded by Bill Stenger, the CEO and President of Jay Peak, and Ariel Quiros, the owner of the resort and other properties. Barr and Associates, which is representing the investors, has asked for depositions of 10 individuals, starting with Mr. Hulme on July 27, and the release of all records pertaining to the EB-5 program. The Vermont Attorney General's office asked Judge Carlson to block the depositions and the records release in a motion on July 18. Judge Carlson ruled that the plaintiffs' requests violated legal procedures. Bill Griffin, the chief assistant Vermont Attorney General, said in an interview that it was "inappropriate" for the plaintiffs to file a request for depositions and documents before the state responded to the investors' complaint, which was filed in June. The AG's response, which must be filed by September 8, will be a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the state is protected from civil lawsuits under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, Griffin said. Three state entities and 10 individuals are named in the class action lawsuit, including members of the former Shumlin administration who are no longer in public office. The AG's office is representing current officials named in the lawsuit, and the Vermont EB-5 Regional Center, the Agency of Commerce and Community Development and the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation. Russell Barr, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, says his firm wanted to get Hulme, who is now 74, on the record as soon as possible. "The state quashed whistleblower Douglas Hulme when he attempted to tell them the truth about Jay Peak in 2012 and they are doing so again by quashing his deposition now," Barr said. "What are they so fearful of? The truth?" Mr. Hulme, of Rapid USA Visas, worked as a consultant for Jay Peak CEO Bill Stenger and resort owner Ariel Quiros from 2006 through 2011. In that role, Mr. Hulme solicited investors for the Jay Peak projects. In February 2012, he broke off his relationship with the developers and publicly announced that he no longer had faith in the financials at Jay Peak. Later that year, Mr. Hulme told officials with the Vermont EB-5 Regional Center that Messrs. Stenger and Quiros, who were looking to use nearly $800 million in EB-5 immigrant investor funds for a series of developments in the Northeast Kingdom, were misappropriating funds, according to the plaintiffs' lawsuit. Under the federal EB-5 program, immigrants who put up a $500,000 in risky developments in poor rural areas are eligible to receive green cards. The Vermont center, the only one of its kind nationally, was responsible for monitoring, overseeing and reviewing financial documents for the Jay Peak EB-5 projects. Instead of investigating Mr. Hulme's allegations in 2012, the Vermont Regional EB-5 Center vouched for the developers and forced Rapid USA, which had other clients in Vermont including Mount Snow Resort, out of the state. Before and after Mr. Hulme blew the whistle on the developers, state officials told investors that the projects promoted by Messrs. Stenger and Quiros were safe investments. In marketing materials, the two developers, and Gov. Peter Shumlin, claimed the projects were audited by the state. Shumlin, U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, and U.S. Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vermont, promoted Jay Peak to potential investors in China. Despite Mr. Hulme's warning to state officials in 2012, the fraud continued through April 2016 when the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Messrs. Quiros and Stenger with misappropriating $200 million in immigrant investment funds. Many investors say it was the state's stamp of approval that gave the projects legitimacy. More than 800 were allegedly defrauded by Messrs. Stenger and Quiros, according to the SEC. In the civil complaint against the state, five immigrants, including Tony Sutton, a British investor in the Tram Haus Lodge, and Wei Wang, a Chinese investor in AnC Bio Vermont, a proposed biomedical facility, charge that state officials were at best "grossly negligent" and at worst intimately involved in a conspiracy to cover up their joint improprieties with the developers. Mr. Sutton and his attorneys allege that the state effectively acted as partners in the alleged fraud at Jay Peak Resort. The 16-count class action lawsuit alleges that the state failed to perform due diligence in reviewing the projects, failed to monitor the projects, violated securities laws, profited at the expense of investors, misrepresented its oversight role to investors, and failed to follow up on red flags that would have uncovered the scheme. Sutton, in 2014, asked Pat Moulton, the former secretary of the Agency of Commerce and Community Development, to investigate allegations that the developers had illegally used investor funds to purchase the Jay Peak Resort in 2008. Ms. Moulton came to the defense of the Jay Peak developers and ignored Mr. Sutton's request. Ms. Moulton is named in the class action investor lawsuit, as is James Candido, Brent Raymond and Eugene Fullam, the former directors of the regional center; Joan Goldstein, the interim director of the center; William Carrigan, deputy commissioner of the Securities Division; Michael Pieciak and Susan Donegan, the current and former commissioners of the Department of Financial Regulation; Lawrence Miller, former secretaries of the commerce agency; and John Kessler, general counsel for the commerce agency. Ms. Donegan refused service of the plaintiffs' lawsuit, according to an affidavit. [GN] VITAMIN SHOPPE: "Nathan" Suit Moved to S. Dist. of Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Andrea Nathan, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff v. Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 37-02017- 00023258-CU-BT-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of California, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on August 8, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01590-DMS-RBB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Dana M. Sabraw. Vitamin Shoppe is a retailer of nutritional products and sports supplements as well as herbs, homeopathic remedies, and beauty aids.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Joseph, Esq. The Law Office of Paul K. Joseph, PC 4125 West Point Loma Blvd., No. 206 San Diego, CA 92110 Tel: (619) 767-0356 Fax: (619) 331-2943 Email: paul@pauljosephlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Amy B Alderfer, Esq. Cozen O'Connor 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (213) 892-7941 Fax: (213) 784-9067 Email: aalderfer@cozen.com VOLKSWAGEN AG: Summer Alleges Price-Fixing of Luxury Cars --------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN SUMMER, MICHAEL VIGORITO, and VICTOR VILAPLANA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VOLKSWAGEN AG, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., BENTLEY MOTORS LIMITED, AUDI AG, AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC, DR. ING. H.C.F. PORSCHE AG, PORSCHE CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., DAIMLER AG, MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, MERCEDES-BENZ VANS, LLC, MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC., BMW AG and BMW NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-05740 (D.N.J., August 4, 2017), alleges violations of antitrust laws. The case follows stunning revelations of a decades-long conspiracy where the "German Five" carmakers held themselves out to be fierce competitors, but in reality were functioning as divisions of a single massive company, agreeing on nearly every aspect of the creation of their cars, unbeknownst to the millions of consumers, who thought they were the beneficiaries of innovation and competition, the Plaintiffs allege. Through thousands of meetings and constant communication between hundreds of employees, Audi, BMW, Daimler (parent of Mercedes), Porsche and Volkswagen conspired not to compete on innovation, and worked together to keep it all secret, the Plaintiffs say. Volkswagen AG is a German corporation with its principal place of business in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen AG is the parent company of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, Porsche AG, and Bentley. In 2016, Volkswagen AG was the largest auto manufacturer in the world. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is incorporated in New Jersey, and does business in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with its principal place of business in Herndon, Virginia. Volkswagen Group advertises, markets, and sells Volkswagen vehicles through the United States. Bentley Motors Limited Company is organized under the laws of the United Kingdom. Bentley has been a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG since 1998. In 2012, Bentley moved its U.S. headquarters to the offices of Volkswagen Group of America in Herndon, Virginia. Prior to this change, Bentley was headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG is a German corporation with its principal place of business located in Stuttgart, Germany. Porsche AG is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG. Porsche AG designs, develops, manufactures, and sells the German Luxury Vehicles at issue. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Georgia. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary of Porsche AG and advertises, markets, and sells German Luxury Vehicles in all 50 states. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. maintains a network of 189 dealers throughout the United States. Audi AG is a German corporation with its principal place of business in Ingolstadt, Germany. Audi AG is the parent company of Audi of America, Inc. and Audi of America, LLC and also is a wholly owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG. Audi AG designs, develops, manufactures, and sells the German Luxury Vehicles at issue that were purchased throughout the United States. Audi of America, Inc. is incorporated in New Jersey, and does business in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with its principal place of business in Herndon, Virginia. Audi of America, LLC is incorporated in Delaware, and does business in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with its principal place of business in Herndon. Daimler Aktiengesellschaft is a foreign corporation headquartered in Stuttgart, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. Daimler AG designs, engineers, manufactures, tests, markets, supplies, sells and distributes the German Luxury Vehicles at issue that were purchased throughout the United States. Daimler AG is the parent company of Mercedez-Benz USA, LLC and controls this subsidiary, which acts as the sole distributor for Mercedes-Benz vehicles in the United States. Daimler AG owns 100% of the capital share in Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC operates a regional sales office, a parts distribution center, and a customer service center in New Jersey. Mercedes designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and sells the German Luxury Vehicles at issue that were purchased throughout the United States. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Alabama, with its principal place of business in Vance, Alabama. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Daimler AG. Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Ladson, South Carolina. Mercedes- Benz Vans, LLC is a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary of Daimler AG. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG ("BMW AG") is a German holding company and vehicle manufacturer. BMW AG is headquartered in Germany. BMW AG, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, and sells cars and motorcycles worldwide. BMW North America, LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey. BMW of North America is the United States importer of BMW vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David R. Buchanan, Esq. Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 550 Broad Street, Suite 920 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 Facsimile: (973) 639-9393 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com - and - Jennifer Scullion, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water Street, 26th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 Facsimile: (212) 584-0799 E-mail: jscullion@seegerweiss.com - and - Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. David W. Mitchell, Esq. Brian O. O'Mara, Esq. Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq. Carmen A. Medici, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com davidm@rgrdlaw.com bomara@rgrdlaw.com xanb@rgrdlaw.com cmedici@rgrdlaw.com - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark J. Dearman, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Kevin A. Seely, Esq. Steven M. Mckany, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com kseely@robbinsarroyo.com smckany@robbinsarroyo.com VOLUME SERVICES: Class Certification Bid in "Allchin" Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned MARK ALLCHIN and DAVID FOSTER, individuals, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VOLUME SERVICES, INC. dba CENTERPLATE and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00488-H-KSC(S.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs are employees of the Defendant. Allchin has been employed by the Defendant since 1993 and has worked exclusively at the San Diego Convention Center and Qualcomm Stadium. Foster has been employed by Defendant since 2011 and also worked exclusively at the San Diego Convention Center and Qualcomm Stadium. They allege that the Defendant has failed to properly compensate employees for their overtime and improperly provided employees with inaccurate paystubs. They filed this case as a purported class action and now seek to certify three classes, including one subclass. The first class, the Overtime Class, includes all current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant within the State of California who were compensated, at least in part, by service charge distributions and who worked overtime hours. The second class, the Late Pay Subclass, is a subclass of the Overtime Class and includes any member of the Overtime Class who also did not receive all their full overtime wages upon termination or resignation. The third class, the Inaccurate Pay Statement Class, includes all current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendants within the State of California who were not provided with an accurate, itemized pay statement reflecting (i) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked by the employee at each hourly rate, or (ii) reflecting the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer. Finally, the fourth class, the UCL Class, is a derivative class, consisting of all members of the other classes. The alleged injury to the Overtime Class and the Late Pay Subclass stems from the claim that the Defendant improperly calculated the amount of overtime pay for employees receiving service charge distributions. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendant failed to include service charges in the calculation of employees' regular pay rates for purposes of determining the proper overtime rate. Thus, as a result of this miscalculation, neither class received their entire compensation. The alleged injury to the Inaccurate Pay Statement Class stems from misstatements in employee's pay statements. The Plaintiffs argue that employees' pay statements violated the California Labor Code because they did not, for example, include all hourly rates or the name and address of the employer. Judge Huff held that plaintiffs bear the burden of affirmatively demonstrating they have satisfied all of the prerequisites of a class action. Here, they Plaintiffs have not done so. The record before her is limited to facts concerning the Named Plaintiffs, and offers almost no details as to other class members. Similarly, the Plaintiffs have failed to address differences between Named Plaintiffs' employment and that of other class members such as differences in unionization and the impact of collective bargaining agreements. With no evidence regarding other class members, she is unable to assess similarities and differences between Named Plaintiffs and the classes they seek to represent. As such, Judge Huff cannot find that Rule 23's prerequisites are met and must, thus, she denied certification. Furthermore, pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, the parties were to complete discovery by Jan. 12, 2017. Because the discovery deadline has already passed, she denied certification with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/gmp0PJ from Leagle.com. Mark Allchin, Petitioner, represented by Andrew Michael Greene -- agreene@salisburylegal.com -- Greene Law Offices. Mark Allchin, Petitioner, represented by Lawrence J. Salisbury -- lsalisbury@salisburylegal.com -- Salisbury Legal Corp & Mark A. Redmond -- nrr@markredmondlaw.com -- Law Offices of Mark A Redmond PC. David Foster, Petitioner, represented by Andrew Michael Greene, Greene Law Offices, Lawrence J. Salisbury, Salisbury Legal Corp & Mark A. Redmond, Law Offices of Mark A Redmond PC. Volume Services, Inc., Respondent, represented by Evelina Shpolyansky -- evelina.shpolyansky@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Scott J. Witlin -- scott.witlin@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg, LLP & Steve Lou Hernandez -- stevelouesq@yahoo.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP. WALGREENS: Faces Class Action Over New Sweetened Beverage Tax ------------------------------------------------------------- Becky Yerak, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a Schaumburg man is suing Walgreens for allegedly wrongly charging Cook County's new sweetened beverage tax on unsweetened sparkling water. The lawsuit, filed on Aug. 4 by Vincent De Leon, comes days after the county's penny-per-ounce tax took effect. The tax went into effect on Aug. 2 and applies to nonalcoholic beverages that are either sugar- or artificially sweetened, including fountain drinks as well as bottled and canned beverages. LaCroix and similar flavored bubbly waters, such as Perrier and Soleil, aren't supposed to be taxed because they're not sweetened. But some retailers experienced snafus in implementing the tax. Walgreens, for example, said that it "inadvertently coded" some products incorrectly, but that it was "working to resolve this complex issue as soon as possible." De Leon is seeking a jury trial and class-action status for his lawsuit, which was filed in Cook County Circuit Court. "Even the architect of the tax, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, recently tweeted that unsweetened beverages are not subject to the pop tax," says the lawsuit, which includes a screen grab of her tweet. "Walgreens has publicly admitted it is wrongly charging the pop tax on unsweetened beverages -- and yet it continues to do so without informing customers that they are being wrongly charged," the lawsuit says. "Despite knowing that it has improperly coded its products, Walgreens has not taken any steps to provide corrections at the cash register." De Leon's lawsuit says he bought Dasani Tropical Pineapple Sparkling Water, labeled as unsweetened, from a Walgreens store in Hoffman Estates on Aug. 4 and was charged the sweetened beverage tax. The lawsuit also says a Walgreens store in Western Springs charged the tax on a case of Dasani Black Cherry Sparkling Water that was labeled as unsweetened. The lawsuit included photos of the water and the receipt. The drugstore chain also charged the sweetened beverage tax on Lipton Pure Leaf Unsweetened Green Tea, the lawsuit says. Walgreens spokesman Phil Caruso declined to comment on the lawsuit. Meanwhile, a state appeals court on Aug. 7 denied a request from a group of retailers to put the controversial tax on hold once again. The Illinois Retail Merchants Association sued the county in June, alleging the tax is unconstitutional and too vague to implement. The legal battle delayed the tax for a month. Cook County Circuit Judge Daniel Kubasiak dismissed the suit July 28 and dissolved a temporary restraining order that blocked implementation of the tax. But the merchants group is appealing the ruling and asked the appeals court to reinstate the court order blocking the tax. Preckwinkle spokesman Frank Shuftan said county officials "applaud the appellate court's decision." "We believe this was the appropriate action by the court, and we appreciate the quick action by the justices," Mr. Shuftan said. [GN] WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over Kids' Data Privacy Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Bisson, writing for Graham Cluley, reports that two plaintiffs have filed a class-action lawsuit against The Walt Disney Company for wrongfully exfiltrating children's personally identifying information. Amanda Rushing and her child "L.L." submitted their claims to the San Francisco/Oakland Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on August 3. In so doing, they brought action on themselves and all others who feel Disney did not abide by existing data protection laws when designing some of its mobile apps. Their complaint seeks to try Disney and its partners by jury for their alleged violations. The class-action lawsuit reaches back to 14 January 2014 when Ms. Rushing installed one of Disney's apps called "Disney Princess Palace Pets" onto L.L.'s device. L.L. thereafter played the game on an ongoing basis. Unbeknownst to them or their mother, L.L. inadvertently handed over their personal information to Disney while they played the game. As it turns out, Disney had consulted with three partners to insert advertising-specific software development kits (SDKs) into Disney Princess Palace Pets and some of its other applications. These SDKs gather pieces of data and help advertisers detect a user's activity via persistent identifiers. SDK providers can subsequently use these persistent identifiers to track someone across multiple devices and apps with the intention of serving targeted ads. SDKs are not illegal on their own. But app developers can leverage them in ways that violate data protection laws. Take Disney. As its apps target mainly children aged 13 years and under, the entertainment conglomerate is supposed to follow the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA), which among other things requires developers to obtain parents' permission before they collect children's personally identifying information. Well, Disney allegedly never requested Ms. Rushing's permission at the time of installation, following installation, or on the home page of the Disney Palace Princess Pets app. Hence Ms. Rushing and L.L.'s claims that the company committed "highly offensive" intrusions into their privacy. As the complaint states: "The ability to serve behavioral advertisements to a specific user no longer turns upon obtaining the kinds of data with which most consumers are familiar (email addresses, etc), but instead on the surreptitious collection of persistent identifiers, which are used in conjunction with other data points to build robust online profiles. Permitting technology companies to obtain persistent identifiers associated with children exposes them to the behavioral advertising (as well as other privacy violations) that COPPA was designed to prevent." Ms. Rushing and L.L. want Disney and its partners to stop wrongfully collecting children's information and to award appropriate relief to everyone affected. This isn't the first time Disney, which refused to pay extortionists earlier in the year, has run afoul of privacy laws. In 2011, the company paid $3 million to settle a complaint that Playdom, Disney's online game developer which suffered a breach in August 2016, illegally collected and disclosed children's information. Three years later, the Center for Digital Democracy filed a complaint alleging similar violations against the conglomerate's Marvelkids.com. Given this track record, parents and their children might want to think carefully about downloading one of Disney's apps. Maybe just put on one of the princess movies instead . . . [GN] WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Sarrell Seeks Collective Action Status ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled MICHAEL SARRELL, Individually, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WAUPACA FOUNDRY, INC., a Wisconsin Corporation, formerly THYSSENKRUPP WAUPACA, INC., KPS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership, and HITACHI METALS AMERICA LTD., INC., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 00056-TRM-SKL (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs moves the Court to issue an Order: 1. authorizing this case to proceed as a collective action against Defendants Waupaca Foundry, Inc. (formerly Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Inc.), KPS Capital Partners, LP, and Hitachi Metals America Ltd., Inc. (collectively "Waupaca" or "Defendants") to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and other damages owed, for overtime wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of hourly-paid employees who were required to wear protective safety gear and items ("Protective Safety Geared employees) throughout Waupaca's foundries located in Tennessee, Indiana, and Pennsylvania during the last three years; 2. directing Waupaca to immediately provide a list of names, last known addresses and email addresses, and last known telephone numbers for all putative class members within the last three years; 3. providing that notice be prominently posted at each of Waupaca's production facilities in Tennessee, Indiana, and Pennsylvania where putative class members work, be attached to its current hourly-paid Protective Safety Geared employees' next scheduled pay check, and be mailed to each such current and former hourly-paid Protective Safety Geared employee who was so employed in Waupaca's foundries located in Tennessee, Indiana, and Pennsylvania during the last three years so each can assess their claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation; 4. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative Class as of the date this motion is granted (except for those who already have opted into this action); and 5. requiring that the Opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked (except for those who already have opted into this action). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VNuNfR2V The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754 8001 Facsimile: (901) 754 8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com WELLS FARGO: Card Processing Unit Sued Over Excessive Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Daniels and Evan Weinberger, writing for Law360, report that a pair of small businesses hit Wells Fargo Merchant Services with a putative class action in New York federal court on Aug. 4 alleging it misleads customers and charged excessive fees for its credit- and debit-card-processing services. Patti's Pitas LLC, a shuttered Pennsylvania restaurant, and Queen City Tours, a tour operator in Charlotte, North Carolina, claim Wells Fargo Merchant Services inflates "pass through" costs, increases agreed-upon fees, and imposes new charges without telling new customers about these costs when they sign up -- and that it also charges a $500 termination fee if they want to end their services. The plaintiffs say hundreds of thousands of merchants have been damaged by Wells Fargo Merchant Services' alleged wrongful conduct. "As a consequence of defendant's overbilling policies and practices, plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class have been wrongfully forced to pay unauthorized fees and charges," the suit says. "Defendant has improperly deprived plaintiffs and those similarly situated of significant funds, causing ascertainable monetary losses and damages." The defendant is co-owned by Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and First Data Merchant Services Corporation, the suit says. Sara Hassell, a spokesperson for Wells Fargo, told Law360 that the accusations in the complaint do not reflect how the company operates its Merchant Services business. "We believe our negotiated pricing terms are fair and were administered appropriately," Ms. Hassell said. "We deny the claims and plan to defend against the misrepresentations outlined in the lawsuit." The complaint claims Wells Fargo Merchant Services dupes customers from the start by making promises it doesn't intend to keep about its fee structure and periodic charges. Its contractual terms are included in a "massive" 63-page program guide filled with fine print that would take an expert attorney weeks to read and understand, the suit says. Sales reps also tell the defendants they can cancel without a penalty, even though merchants often have to pay an early termination fee should they seek to cancel within a mandatory three-year period, the complaint says. Queen City Tours says it negotiated a contract that had no monthly minimum charge, but wound up paying $35 for a "monthly service fee" even if it didn't have any transaction activity. It was also hit with a $10 statement billing fee after cancelling paper statements, despite a contract footnote saying the fee would be waived if the customer signed up for electronic billing, the complaint says. Patti's Pitas says it stopped using Wells Fargo Merchant Services after its business shut down in May of this year -- but it was continually charged fees until the owner complained. "Fortunately, by the time the business closed, Wells Fargo's improper sales practices had already come to light so, when the owner of Patti's Pitas informed defendant that he had not been told about a three-year term, defendant closed the account without a termination fee," the complaint says. "Most of defendant's customers are not so fortunate, rather they are put to a Hobson's Choice -- pay the early termination fee, usually $500, or accept the overbilling for three years." Claims include breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiffs seek restitution of any improper fees, disgorgement and other damages. The new complaint is the latest in a series of actions against Wells Fargo since September 2016, when it agreed to pay $185 million in a settlement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Los Angeles City Attorney's office over the creation of more than 2 million deposit and credit card accounts. It later agreed to a $142 million class settlement with customers who allege they suffered financial losses from unauthorized accounts that were opened in their names. Then, in late July, Wells Fargo said it would reimburse $80 million to approximately 570,000 car loan borrowers who were wrongly charged by the bank for insurance. The Aug. 4 complaint puts the merchant services suit in the context of the "dramatic revelations" about Wells Fargo's business practices, citing regulatory scrutiny, press reports and legal action. E. Adam Webb of Webb Klase & Lemond LLC, the attorney for the plaintiffs, told Law360 it has become "obvious over the past year that Wells Fargo had a corporate culture which emphasized revenue and profit over honorable business practices." "In April of 2017, internal reports surfaced that confirmed that this culture had infected the Merchant Services division, which provides the vital service of credit [and] debit card processing to many mom-and-pop businesses," Webb said. "We have now seen evidence of this through the experiences of our clients, who learned the hard way that profit trumps promises at Wells Fargo Merchant Services." A spokesperson for First Data declined to comment. The plaintiffs are represented by E. Adam Webb of Webb Klase & Lemond LLC. Counsel information for Wells Fargo Merchant Services LLC wasn't immediately available. The case is Patti's Pitas LLC et al. v. Wells Fargo Merchant Services LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-04583 (E.D.N.Y.). The case is assigned to Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry. The case was filed August 4, 2017. [GN] WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces "Zeiger" Suit Over "DHA" Label in Milk ------------------------------------------------------------- DAN ZEIGER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. WHITEWAVE FOODS COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:17- cv-04464-EDL (N.D. Cal., August 4, 2017), alleges violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law created by the Defendant's alleged advertising, including false labeling of their line of milk products fortified with "DHA" derived from algae under its brand name "Horizon Organic." DHA is one of several omega-3 fatty-acids in the human diet. These include alphalinolenic acid ("ALA"), the only omega-3 fatty acid considered essential in the diet, and eicosapentaenoic acid ("EPA") and docosahexaenoic acid ("DHA"). The Plaintiff tells the Court that front and center and prominently featured by itself in a white banner running across the front of each and every milk carton, the Defendant states "DHA Omega-3 Supports Brain Health." The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's Milk Products do not "support brain health" as the Defendant represents on the Milk Products' packaging and labeling. WhiteWave Foods Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dean Foods, is organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware with its headquarters located in Broomfield, Colorado. WhiteWave Foods manufactured, advertised, marketed, and sold the DHA-fortified milk to tens of thousands of consumers nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 600 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798-4593 E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com - and - Elaine A. Ryan, Esq. Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 E-mail: eryan@bffb.com claliberte@bffb.com - and - Stewart Weltman, Esq. Michael Chang, Esq. SIPRUT, P.C. 17 North State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 E-mail: sweltman@siprut.com mchang@siprut.com WILCOX DEVELOPMENT: "Mejia" Suit Alleges FLSA, NYLL Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- ELVIN MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against WILCOX DEVELOPMENT CORP., STOP & STOR NEW YORK'S SELF STORAGE LEADER LLC, NEIL SIMON, and JEFF HENICK, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04304 (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2017), alleges that Defendants initially paid Plaintiff on a daily basis, then on an hourly basis, but never paid him overtime premium pay for hours worked over forty (40) in a given workweek. Plaintiff brings this action to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to him pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff also brings this action to recover damages for Defendants' failure to provide proper wage statements and wage notices pursuant to the NYLL and supporting regulations. Plaintiff worked as a construction worker and laborer for Defendants' general contracting and storage facilities company. Plaintiff brings his FLSA claim on behalf of himself and all other laborers, construction workers, and demolition workers of Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 385-9700 WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: "Embree" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled TOMMY J. EMBREE, the Plaintiff, v. WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, WYNDHAM VACATION REPORTS, INC., WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC. FAIRSHARE VACATION OWNERS ASSOCIATION, RCI LLC, TERRI DOST, PETER HERNANDEZ and ROB HEBELER, Case No. 6:16-cv-00928-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "all persons and entities who are citizens of the United States of America and who on or after March 14, 2008: (1) purchased a timeshare with a Property Interest (or the Use Rights therein) subject to the Fairshare Vacation Plan Use Management Trust or (2) purchased (including upgrading or refinancing) a Property Interest (or the Use Rights therein) previously subject to the Fairshare Vacation Plan Use Management Trust". The Plaintiff challenges the Individual Defendants improper use of an Arkansas Trust to reap enormous profits at the expense of the Trust's beneficiaries -- including Plaintiff and members of the putative class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0210bOxe The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223 5505 Facsimile: (813) 223 5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com pbarthle@ForThePeople.com - and - James M. Terrell, Esq. MCCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, PA 2201 Arlington Ave. S Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205)939 0199 Facsimile: (205)939 0399 - and - Bradford D. Barron, Esq. THE BARRON LAW FIRM, PLLC P.O. Box 369 Claremore, Ok 74018 Telephone: (918) 341 8402 Facsimile: (918) 515 4691 - and - Richard F. Hatfield, Esq. RICHARD F. HATFILED, PA 401 W. Capital Ave., Suite 502 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501)374 9010 Facsimile: (501)374 8510 The Defendants are represented by: David E. Cannella, Esq. Chris Coutroulis, Esq. D. Mathew Allen, Esq. 450 S. Orange Ave., Suite 500 Orlando, FL 34760 E-mail: dcannella@carltonfields.com ccoutroulis@carltonfields.com mallen@carltonfields.com ZODIAC U.S.: Approval of Settlement in "Cuzick" Action Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled KYLE CUZICK, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, the vPlaintiff, v. ZODIAC U.S. SEAT SHELLS, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-03793-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order to: 1. grant preliminary approval of the terms of the Stipulation as fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the amount of the settlement; the amount of distributions to class members; the procedure for giving notice to class members; the procedure for opting out of the settlement; and the amounts allocated to the enhancement payments and attorney's fees and costs; 2. preliminarily certify for settlement purposes the Settlement Class described in the Stipulation as follows: "all individuals who are or who have been employed by Defendant in California as a non-exempt employee during any portion of the Settlement Class Period (the period from May 25, 2012, through the date of preliminary approval); 3. appoint Plaintiff as representative for the Settlement Class; 4. appoint Setareh Law Group as counsel for the Settlement Class; 5. approve ILYM Group, Inc. as the settlement administrator; 6. direct that notice issue to members of the Settlement Class as provided in the Stipulation; and 7. schedule a final approval and fairness hearing on a date approximately 140 days after preliminary approval (April 8, 2018 is proposed) to consider whether the Stipulation should be finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to rule on the motion for attorney's fees, costs and enhancement award submitted by Plaintiff. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DLKuvmyM The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888 7771 Facsimile: (310) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com scott@setarehlaw.com * Boyd County, Ky. Mulls Suit Against Opioid Distributors --------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Adkins, writing for The Daily Independent, reports that heroin in the streets didn't spark the vicious drug epidemic throttling Boyd County, Sheriff Bobby Jack Woods argued as he urged the fiscal court to file suit against opioid distributors. "We need to hold them accountable for the problems that started here in Boyd County," he said. Sheriff Woods made his recommendation in a fiscal court meeting. He cited a discussion he and Judge-Executive Steve Towler had in late July with officials of the Kentucky Association of Counties who educated them on their legal options. Government bodies across Kentucky, West Virginia and Ohio are pouncing on the chance to sue opioid-distributing corporations. They're partnering with law firms -- Greene, Ketchum Farrell Bailey & Tweel of Huntington -- in pursuit of millions of dollars in damages. Cabell County hired the Huntington firm and filed suit in March against mega-corporations distributing the drug, according to the suit filed in federal court. The suit alleges the companies sold 40 million doses of opioid pain medicine in Cabell County between 2007 and 2012. The county's population hovered around 94,000 in the same time span. Federal law requires drug distributors to report any suspicious controlled substance orders by pharmacies to authorities. The wholesale distributors "breached their duty to monitor, detect, investigate, refuse and report suspicious orders of prescription opiates originating from Cabell County," the suit alleges. Greene Ketchum is representing Kanawha County, W. Va. and Clermont County, Ohio in similar litigation. Like Clermont, Boyd County could sue opioid wholesalers on the grounds they caused a "public nuisance," by allegedly contributing to the opioid abuse and dependency, Woods said. "I don't know why we wouldn't get on board with this," said Mr. Towler. "Most people recognize we have an addiction problem, and a lot of people believe these companies are partly at fault." The opioid epidemic has pummeled Boyd more than any other county in eastern Kentucky. Boyd reported 30 overdoses last year, the sixth most in the state behind Jefferson, Fayette, Boone, Campbell and Kenton. Boyd's population of 48,000 is the 16th highest in the state and nearly half the size of Campbell's -- the least populated of the five. The overdose death totals in Boyd have escalated since 2009 when nine reportedly fatally overdosed. Thirteen overdosed and died in 2014. The next year, 24 died. And, the county is on track this year to catapult beyond last year's total. The Boyd coroner has confirmed 23 overdose deaths as of July 31. Addiction is not only leading to overdose deaths. It's leading otherwise law-abiding citizens to commit crimes, said Woods. It's also draining resources from emergency responders. Boyd EMS has treated at least 185 overdose patients this year according to Director Tom Adams. The agency is on pace to spend $30,000 on the overdose-reversing drug Narcan in 2017. The EMS Narcan budget was $1,200 eight years ago. Pending litigation filed against wholesalers seeks reimbursement of "the costs associated with past efforts to eliminate the hazards to public health and safety." If Boyd filed suit and was successful in its suit the county could use settlement money to fund emergency services, law enforcement, the coroner's office, the jail, rehabilitation and treatment centers. The financially-strapped Boyd County 911 center could also benefit, Woods said. The county would likely not be on the hook for legal fees if it sues wholesale distributors according to KACo. Greene Ketchum agreed to work for Cabell County on a contingency basis. The law firm would receive 30 percent of any potential damages won but won't charge the county if no damages are awarded. Boyd would not be the only Kentucky county looking for perceived compensation from wholesalers. Harlan County announced plans to join Bell and other southeastern counties last month in a class-action suit against three distributors. The state of Kentucky is also pursuing ancillary litigation. Kentucky Attorney General Andy Beshear announced in June a lawsuit against drug manufacturers who he claims illegally marketed opioids to patients. The state reached a $24 million settlement with Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of oxycontin, in 2015, the year a record-high 1,248 fatally overdosed. The state record was short-lived. Last year, 1,404 died after overdosing in Kentucky. The Boyd Fiscal Court took no action after Sheriff Woods asked the fiscal court to consider his request. Mr. Towler believes the process could take three-to-five years. "But it could be worth it," he said. [GN] * CFBP Rule to Benefit Class-Action Lawyers Than Consumers ---------------------------------------------------------- According to The Wall Street Journal, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown's Aug. 1 letter "The Arbitration Rule Saves Consumers From Big Banks" accuses Journal editorial writers of "carefully select[ing] statistics" to criticize the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's recently finalized anti-arbitration rule. But he's rather selective himself by failing to acknowledge that the new rule's biggest beneficiaries will not be allegedly cheated consumers but wealthy class-action lawyers who happen to comprise his party's most reliably generous campaign contributors. [GN] * Class Action Attorneys Continue to Target Food Companies ---------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that plaintiffs attorneys who target food and beverage companies with class action lawsuits are showing no signs of slowing down, according to analysis from international law firm Perkins Coie that also shows California's lawyers are the most active. Two members of the firm hosted a mid-year summary on food and beverage class actions on Aug. 2, presenting figures that show 2017 is on pace for a similar amount of filings as the previous two years. With 83 cases filed in the first seven months of the year, Perkins Coie projects 143 for the year. That's nearly identical to 2016 (145 lawsuits) and a little behind 2015 (158). In 2008, there were only 19. "There's been a return to California as the forum of preference for food and beverage class action lawsuits," Perkins Coie's Charles Sipos said during a one-hour webinar. In fact, California courts have seen 47 food industry class actions in 2017, compared to only 12 by second-place New York. It's a larger gap than last year, when 65 were filed in California and 35 in New York. Legal Newsline has reported on several of these cases, which boil down to a few separate types of claims. There are lawsuits in which consumers claim they were misled into buying the product. Such was the case in Vicky Silva's Oregon lawsuit that says she thought coconut-flavored sparkling water would contain coconut milk or water. The company argued that a label on the product stated: "Contains no coconut." Similarly, lawsuits have been filed against the makers of ginger ale. Plaintiffs allege there is no ginger in the soda, despite being marketed as so. Lawsuits alleging false or misleading claims make up the majority of cases filed since 2015. So far, 40 have been filed in 2017. Nineteen lawsuits this year have alleged companies falsely use the phrase "all natural" to describe their products. Defendants, like Utz and salad dressing maker Annie's Homegrown, are facing these cases despite a lack of federal guidance on what makes a food "natural." Plaintiffs and their lawyers say some products labeled that way actually contain non-natural, artificial and synthetic ingredients and preservatives. "The (Food and Drug Administration) does have an informal policy, but that policy has not been given the weight of law," Mr. Sipos said. In fact, Mr. Sipos said Congress is tiring of the FDA's delay, given that it was asked in November 2015 to define "natural." More than 7,600 comments have been submitted to the FDA. A pending appropriations bill would force the FDA to act. The agency would be required to report to Congress 60 days after the bill's passage on the status of its rulemaking activity. "It encourages the FDA to promulgate a regulation to have some sort of uniform, standard use for that term," Mr. Sipos said, adding that it shows Congress prefers regulation to litigation to settle the issue. In the meantime, judges have stayed some of these cases, but a couple of stays have been recently lifted. Another main type of food and beverage class action concerns "slack fill," the amount of empty space in packaging. Plaintiffs allege they are tricked by the size of the package and upset to find how much actual product is inside. Muscle Milk received a favorable decision in New York federal court late last year, but that hasn't stopped plaintiffs attorneys. Among the products mentioned in these cases are Jolly Ranchers, Hot Tamales, Mike and Ikes, Whoppers, Ice Breakers, Reese's Pieces and pepper. Unlike the term "natural," slack fill has an official definition from the FDA, but defendants argue it can be necessary and useful. Plus, labels show the products' weight and how many servings are inside. Fourteen of these cases have been filed in 2017, according to Perkins Coie. There were 37 last year and 30 in 2015. Missouri is a jurisdiction to watch for these cases, Breena Roos said during the webinar. The state has recently drawn attention from legal reformers as a result of massive verdicts in talcum powder litigation in St. Louis. "The reason why Missouri is targeted, in state court at least, is they're considered a very plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction and it's quite difficult to get a case dismissed early on," Mr. Sipos added. The state saw 14 food and beverage class actions last year, third- most in the country. This year, there have been six. Still, California remains the king. If a plaintiffs attorney can't get a nationwide class certified by a judge, it makes sense to focus on the laws of a state with a large population to create large statewide class. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco has given district courts leeway to determine if plaintiffs' damages models are accurate enough when certifying a class, Mr. Sipos said. Other favorable rulings make it harder for defendants to win their motions to dismiss, he added. "Defendants would be well-served picking apart damages models and demonstrating that the models proffered might not have a tight enough relationship to putative class members or might not be reflective of actual market data," Mr. Sipos said. [GN] * Texas' Hensarling Mulls Contempt Charge v. CFPB Director ---------------------------------------------------------- Tory Newmyer, writing for The Washington Post, reports that the dog days of summer will be especially hot for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Its push to enable class-action lawsuits against financial firms is setting up a defining clash with Wall Street interests. The battle will come to a head in September, when Senate Republicans aim to sink the agency's proposed ban on contracts that lock consumers out of suing their banks. The industry is already fighting back. And, as in the health-care debate that swallowed the summer, a handful of Senate Republicans will determine the outcome. House Republicans voted in January to scupper the rule. Their colleagues across the Capitol need to muster a simple majority to follow suit, which also means they can afford only minimal defections. One has already declared himself, as the Wall Street Journal's Andrew Ackerman reported on Aug. 4: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) in an interview said he opposed the resolution, saying arbitration is "a windfall for the companies in terms of how you settle their cheating." "You've had banks and credit-card companies nickel-and-diming consumers, and one of the things that makes them think twice is the idea of a massive lawsuit," Mr. Graham said. "Nobody is going to get a lawyer over a $10 overcharge, but when you overcharge millions of people $10, the bank or the credit-card company makes out like a bandit" in arbitration. Those on the bubble include the three Republican senators who sunk the party's Obamacare repeal drive. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have said they're undecided on the matter; and it's not clear whether John McCain (Ariz.) will be back in time for a vote after undergoing treatment for brain cancer. John Kennedy (R) of Louisiana also says he has yet to make up his mind. With a broader rewrite of post-crisis regulation barely budging in the Senate, the debate offers the Trump era's first live- ammunition test of Wall Street's mettle in the upper chamber. The industry is facing off against labor unions, the progressive grass roots and the trial bar, forces that arguably enjoy the political upper hand. Marginal Republicans know a vote against the CFPB could be seen as anti-consumer. The five-year-old agency already repulsed a similar challenge to its authority back in May, when Senate Republicans couldn't marshal the votes to kill a CFPB rule regulating prepaid debit cards. Advocates on both sides say the stakes are significantly higher this time. The CFPB faces a rear guard assault, meanwhile, from House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) for its handling of the issue. The Texas Republican is considering whether to pursue a contempt of Congress charge against CFPB director Richard Cordray, whom he says failed to comply with subpoena requests from the panel related to the agency's work on the rule. Mr. Hensarling's committee issued a 36-page report on Aug. 4 arguing that Mr. Cordray has ignored its document requests; the CFPB maintains it has produced thousands of pages of documents and is trying to cooperate. Mr. Cordray provides a shrinking target. The former Ohio attorney general is widely expected to quit his post soon to mount a bid in his home state's 2018 gubernatorial race. [GN] * Washington Republicans Criticize CFPB's Arbitration Rule ---------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Wehrman, writing for CantonRep.com, reports that Washington Republicans are sharply criticizing a rule that would allow consumers to file class-action lawsuits against financial companies -- the latest battle in an ongoing war between the GOP and a consumer watchdog headed by former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray. In July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a rule barring financial service companies from inserting fine print into contracts that would effectively prevent customers from filing class-action lawsuits against them. Instead, consumers with beefs are forced into arbitration -- a process that involves a third party who hammers out an agreement between the company and the aggrieved. Supporters of the rule say few customers are willing to enter arbitration over a bank that erroneously charges, say, $20 and won't refund the money. But if a bank is doing it systematically, a class-action lawsuit can stop them from ripping off hundreds, maybe thousands of consumers -- and can also keep them from ripping off people in the future. The clauses, said Mr. Cordray, "block groups of consumers from taking action together." Without being able to sue, he argues, "no justice is done, no deterrent achieved, no oversight of banks can be had." Opponents, meanwhile, argue the rule not only presents an easy payday for trial lawyers -- it's a symbol, they say, of an agency with too much unchecked power. Those critics -- including Republicans and the banking industry -- have been foes of the CFPB almost since the agency opened its doors in 2011. Because Mr. Cordray is appointed to a five-year term and Congress has no financial power over his agency, they argue that he is a one-man legislating machine. "Everything about this says it's an abuse of power," said Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Troy. He said Mr. Cordray "doesn't ask for the law to be changed. He just issues an edict and expects that it's going to be okay. "He's not been elected to do this role," he said. "He's not even accountable to Congress or the president." Some, including Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, have called for Mr. Cordray to be fired. Short of that, though, critics are content in trying to undo the agency's work. In July, the House voted 231-190 to overturn the arbitration rule. The Senate has until late September to follow suit. Ohio Democrats opposed overturning the rule; Ohio Republicans supported doing so. Critics say the CFPB itself has undermined its defense of the rule, issuing a report finding that consumers who prevailed in arbitration recovered on average $5,389 while those who joined class actions received $32. Trial lawyers on average raked in $1 million. While arbitration is typically settled within a few months, they say, class action lawsuits can take years to resolve. But proponents say that incidents such as Wells Fargo's recent scandal -- where it was found to have created millions of unauthorized accounts in the names of its customers -- is evidence enough that consumers need to have the right to sue. They say that the new rule doesn't ban customers from seeking arbitration -- it just gives them another alternative. Melissa Stegmen, a senior counsel for the Center for Responsive Lending, which supports the rule, said class action lawsuits are "far more effective" for consumers than forced arbitration and "keeps financial companies from exploiting consumers in the first place." While critics counter that class action lawsuits are a giveaway to trial lawyers, Ms. Stegman has another perspective. "Forced arbitration is a giveaway to predatory lenders and those who want to cheat consumers," she said. "Because they're able to continue their illegal conduct." Others insist the rule will merely result in unnecessary litigation. Richard Hunt, president and CEO of the Consumer Bankers Association calls the rule "a gift to trial lawyers." "They'll make millions off of each case," he said. "In some cases, 50 percent of the monetary compensation goes to trial lawyers." He predicts the result will be that banking becomes more expensive. "There will be higher litigation costs to each bank for no reason," he said. "And the costs may be passed onto the consumers." Brian Quigley of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said while the rule doesn't prohibit consumers from seeking arbitration, companies "are not going to have two systems" of dealing with consumers. It's too costly." "The whole point of arbitration is to try to build a dispute resolution system that's fast, efficient and more equitable to all parties, customers included, that doesn't include all the processes of the court that bog down cases for years," he said. Mr. Quigley said most of the disputes credit card companies and banks have with consumers are individualized -- not the sort of thing that can be addressed in class action lawsuits. "It's unlikely there are 10,000 other customers that have exactly the same problem that you do that can be bundled into a class action," he said. "This rule will ultimately harm lots of customers," he said. "because the effect is they will have no recourse." Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said despite the fact that nearly every Republican on the Senate Banking Committee has cosponsored the Senate bill to undo the rule, "there's a reluctance among a lot of Senate Republicans" to actually undo it. Many, he said, would prefer to "just let it die," Brown said. He said that for years, financial services have drawn up such contracts knowing that few customers will read them and those that do won't understand that they're giving up their right to sue. Still, if Senate Republicans press on to undo the rule "I will be leading the opposition," he said. Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center, said the issue is a constitutional one: People, she said, are owed the right to a day in court under the 7th Amendment. In the Wells Fargo case, for example, the bank created 3.5 million fake accounts. "It's insane that people had to go one by one to secretive arbitration," she said. And she said the notion that Cordray authorized the rule without congressional input is just "more falsehood." Congress, she said, ordered the agency to do a study on forced arbitration in 2010, giving them the authority to prohibit arbitration if it was in the public interest. The agency, she said, did not one, but two studies. The rule, she said is based on the findings of those studies. The agency, she said, "is doing its job to protect consumers." [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 * * *