/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170831.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, August 31, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 172
Headlines
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Veytsman Sues over Debt Collection Practices
AETNA: Letters Reveal Identity of HIV Patients, Suit Claims
ALAMEDA HEALTH: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Soman Says
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Morales Sues over Sweetened Beverage Tax
ALLINA HEALTH: Sued Over Failure to Correctly Manage Savings Plan
ALTA MESA: Bollenbach Suit Closed Following Mediation
ALTABA INC: Court Approves Dismissal of Claims in "Buch" Suit
ALVARADO MANUFACTURING: Valladares Sues over Biometric Info
AMAZON LOGISTICS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Alvandi Seeks Commission Wages under Labor Code
BAY OF PLENTY: Edgecumbe Residents Get Behind Class Action Lawsuit
BLUE APRON: IPO Misleading, Shareholders Say in Class Suit
BLUE CROSS: 31 Suits Allege Mishandling of Benefit Plan Funds
BLUE PACIFIC: "Chun" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
BLUESTEM BRANDS: Williams Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
BONNEVILLE BILLING: Faces "Unsworth" Suit in District of Utah
BOS SOLUTIONS: "Kolasa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BRUCE MONK: Faces Suit Over Photos of Underage Ballet Dancers
CARIBOU COFFEE: Settles TCPA Class Action for $8.5 Million
CENTURYLINK INC: Scott Sues over Service & Billing Practices
CHAVAL AL HAZMAN: Faces "Rosales" Suit in E.D. of New York
CHICAGO, IL: Faces "Lintzeris" Suit over Impoundment Ordinance
CIRCLE K: Faces Class Action Over Beverage Tax
CONAGRA: Brief Says 3rd Circuit 'Sprinting' From CA Precedent
CONCEPT AUTO: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Hernandez" Suit Says
CRESCENT CONSULTING: Consultants Class Certified in Whitlow Suit
DELL'ORO GROUP: Weckel Seeks Refund over Use of Personal Devices
DEPOMED INC: Faces "Huang" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
DEPOMED INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
DLC LIMOUSINE: Munoz-Gonzalez Appeals Order & Accord to 2nd Cir.
DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Drake et al. Sue over Sweetened Beverage Tax
FAGRON INC: Bobo's Drugs Files Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
FENIX PARTS: New Jersey Securities Class Action Suit Ongoing
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Meisels" Suit in E.D. of New York
FINISAR CORP: Oklahoma Pension Seeks to Certify Securities Class
FIRST HORIZON: Facing "Garfield" Class Suit over Merger Deal
FIRST HORIZON: Named as Defendant in "Parshall" Suit over Merger
FLUOR CORP: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
FRED MEYER: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. of New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Trust Negotiates Deal for Ignition Flaw Victims
GOLD COAST: "King" Suit in Fla. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge in Class Suit Has Held One Hearing in a Year
GOOGLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms $8.5M Privacy Case Settlement
HELIX ENERGY: Faces "Hewitt" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: "Fergus" Securities Suit Underway
INFOSYS: 3 Law Firms Initiate Investigation Over Securities Fraud
INFOTREE SERVICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Moody" Suit Says
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hit with $417MM Verdict in Talcum Powder Case
LA PARK: Faces "Leisner" Suit over Water Submetering Scheme
LYFT: Hit With Class Action Over Drivers' Payments
M-I L.L.C.: "Smith" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
MARTHA STEWART: Judge Tosses Shareholder Lawsuit
MEDICREDIT INC: Seeks Final Approval of "Hartman" Suit Settlement
MOBILEHELP: Faces "Elzen" Suit in S. Dist. of Fla.
MONOGRAM RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Berg" Suit Over Sale to Greystar
MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Agreement in Principle Reached with New GM
MUSEUM OF SEX: Faces Class Action Over Discrimination
MY SIZE: Response to Shareholder Suit Due September 19
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Laford" Suit in E.D. of New York
NEW YORK: Public Service Commission Faces Class Action
NG & LIN: "Angel" Suit Seeks Minimum and OT Wages under FLSA
NORDSTROM INC: Faces Class Action Over Rolex Watches
NORTH CAROLINA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in King Suit
NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Stern" Suit in E.D. of New York
NUTIVA INC: Jones Seeks Certification of VCO Purchasers Class
NY THRUWAY AUTHORITY: Madison Appeals Order in "Donohue" Suit
NY THRUWAY AUTHORITY: Appeals Ruling in Employees Local 72 Suit
PERFORMANCE FOOD: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Perez Says
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK: De Jesus and Tupil Seek OT Wages
PREMIER CONSTRUCTION: "Patterson" Suit Deal OK'd; Hearing Nov. 2
R.L. VALLEE: Price-Fixing Lawsuit Grinds Toward Jury Trial
RED PARROT: Senior Care Moves for Certification of Two Classes
RIGHTSCORP: Bleeds Another Million, Borrows $200K from BMG
ROBERT J. POWELL: No Sanctions for Court Request Response Delay
ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Says Payments Have Been Made in "Yedlowski" Suit
SITO MOBILE: Waiting for Discovery to Commence
SONOS INC: Faces "Solomon" Suit over Data Collection
SONY MOBILE: Sony Xperia Class Settlement Preliminarily Approved
SOULCYCLE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Health Club Contract
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Underpays Workers, Deanda Says
SPARTON CORP: Scarantino Sues over Ultra Electronics Deal
SPARTON CORP: "Sheahen" Suit Seeks Enjoins Merger with Ultra
STARWOOD HOTELS: Creamer Moves to Certify Class of Participants
STATE FARM: Certification of Two Classes Sought in "Sos" Suit
SUMMIT AIR: "Wagner" Suit Moved to District of Montana
T-MOBILE US: "Ames" Suit Moved to S.D. California
TALISMAN ENERGY: Faces 3 Lawsuits over Mineral Rights Royalties
TALKTALK: Scam Victims Move Closer to Class-Action Lawsuit
TECHNIPFMC PLC: October 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
TRANZVIA LLC: Naiman Sues over Pre-Recorded Phone Calls
TRFC 932: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Under FLSA, New York Labor Law
TRIBECA RESTAURANT: Faces "Sharma" Suit in S.D. of New York
TUROCZY BONDING: Faces "Lane" Suit over Bail Bonds
VALLEY COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lester" Suit Claims
WANG'S GREAT: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Lin" Suit Claims
WATERWORKS AQUATICS: Faces "See" Suit over OT and Minimum Wages
WEST MARINE: October 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ZILLOW GROUP: Fails to Disclose Program Violations, Suit Says
* "Paulcin" Suit Seeks Class Certification
* Supreme Court Made it Easier for Corps. to Fight Class Suits
*********
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Veytsman Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR VEYTSMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06398 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22,
2017), seeks damages, declaratory and injunctive relief under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of a class of
consumers seeking redress for Defendant's illegal practices, in
connection with the collection of a debt allegedly owed by
Plaintiff in violation of the FDCPA.
Defendant is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and
facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose
of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.
The Defendant is a debt collector firm.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Salim Katach, Esq.
Varacalli & Hamra, LLP
110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (646) 590 0571
AETNA: Letters Reveal Identity of HIV Patients, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lowell Neumann Nickey, writing for Courthouse News Service,
reported that health insurance giant Aetna was hit with a federal
class action in Philadelphia, on August 28, claiming it revealed
HIV patients' identities through settlement notice letters
advising them they no longer have to order medications through the
mail.
Aetna has previously settled two lawsuits accusing it of
jeopardizing the privacy of customers who take HIV medications by
requiring them to receive medications through mail, rather than at
a pharmacy.
In addition to an over $300,000 payout, those settlements required
Aetna "send all of its insureds who had been required to mail-
order their HIV medicines a notice informing them that they were
no longer required to order their medications through the mail,"
according to a new lawsuit filed Monday in Philadelphia federal
court.
A proposed class led by an anonymous plaintiff referred to as
Andrew Beckett now alleges that Aetna and an anonymous mailing
vendor did more harm than good by sending this "highly sensitive
information in an envelope with a large transparent glassine
window."
"The instructions for the recipient to fill their HIV medication
prescription was plainly visible through the large-window section
of the envelope," the complaint states. "Specifically, the visible
portion of the letter clearly indicated that it was from Aetna,
included a claims number and information for the addressee, and
stated '[t]he purpose of this letter is to advise you of the
options . . . Aetna health plan when filling prescriptions for HIV
Medic. . .'"
Because of the strong social stigma tied to HIV, many states have
enacted laws to prevent this type of disclosure.
Pennsylvania lawmakers passed the Confidentiality of HIV-Related
Information Act, which prevents health or social service providers
from disclosing HIV-related information, except in certain
circumstances.
Thirty-nine states have enacted HIV-specific privacy statutes,
according to the complaint.
The class action says that Aetna "easily could have avoided the
disclosure . . . [by using] the industry-standard practice of
protecting contents of the envelope by using a blank cover page
that contained only the recipient's name and address."
Lead plaintiff Beckett says he does not have HIV, but takes
medications for the virus "as part of a regimen of pre-exposure
prophylaxis to prevent himself from acquiring HIV." He claims his
sister found the settlement letter when it came to his house, and
she confronted him about his need to take such medications. He
then found himself in "embarrassing and invasive discussions on
why he needed to protect himself, which activities put him at risk
and other topics of an intimate nature," according to the
complaint. At the time he was living with his sister and her
fiance, he says.
Beckett claims the incident has had a negative impact on his own
health in the form of stress and anxiety, and changed his
relationships with family members.
The proposed class is broken up into a nationwide class and
Pennsylvania subclass, with the subclass seeking $100 per person
in damages. Beckett estimates there are around 12,000 people in
the nationwide class and over 100 in the state class.
The lawsuit asserts seven counts, including negligence, violations
of Pennsylvania consumer law, invasion of privacy, breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.
The proposed class is represented by Shanon J. Carson of Berger
Montague and Ronda B. Goldfein of the AIDS Law Project of
Pennsylvania.
They did not return calls requesting comment, nor did
representatives from Aetna.
ALAMEDA HEALTH: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Soman Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAS SOMAN on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM, a public hospital authority;
and DOES l to 100 inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG17872089
(Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 18, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages due to Defendants' systematic and willful
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants routinely acquire consumer,
investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports to conduct
background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current and
former employees and use information from credit and background
reports in connection with their hiring process without providing
proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in
compliance with the law.
Alameda Health System, formerly Alameda County Medical Center, is
an integrated public health care system organized as a public
hospital authority.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Thomas Segal, 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
thomas@setarehlaw.com
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Morales Sues over Sweetened Beverage Tax
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANNIE L. MORALES and ANTONIA M. MORALES, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 2017CH11350 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Aug. 18, 2017), seeks to
recover injunctive relief to ensure that Defendant updates its
Jewel-Osco stores' POS systems to not charge the sweetened
beverage tax on sweetened beverages purchased with Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.
This is a class action brought on behalf of the class of persons,
who were improperly charged the Cook County sweetened beverage tax
by Jewel-Osco stores in Cook County, Illinois when paying for
sweetened beverages with federal food assistance benefits. As a
result, Plaintiffs and Class members were illegally charged the
sweetened beverage tax at Defendants' stores in Cook County,
Illinois.
Albertsons Companies retails food and drugs in the United States.
The company offers pantry staples, prepared foods, fresh produce,
and other related products. The company was incorporated in 2015
and is based in Boise, Idaho. Albertsons Companies, Inc. operates
as a subsidiary of Albertsons Investor Holdings LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440 0020
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
sharon@attorneyzim.com
matt@attorneyzim.com
nick@attorneyzim.com
maebetty@attorneyzim.com
ALLINA HEALTH: Sued Over Failure to Correctly Manage Savings Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Larson, Janelle Mausolf, and Karen Reese, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Allina
Health System; the Allina Health System Board of Directors; the
Allina Health System Retirement Committee; the Allina Health
System Chief Administrative Officer; the Allina Health System
Chief Human Resources Officer; Clay Ahrens; John I. Allen;
Jennifer Alstad; Gary Bhojwani; Barbara Butts-Williams; John R.
Church; Laura Gillund; Joseph Goswitz; Greg Heinemann; David
Kuplic; Hugh T. Nierengarten; Sahra Noor; Brian Rosenberg; Debbra
L. Schoneman; Thomas S. Schreier, Jr.; Abir Sen, Sally J. Smith;
Darrell Tukua; Penny Wheeler; Duncan Gallagher; Christine Webster
Moore; Kristyn Mullin; Steve Wallner; John T. Knight; and John
Does 1-20, Case No. 0:17-cv-03835 (D. Minn., August 18, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, specifically by failure to
establish and use a systematic process to monitor the performance
and cost of the investment options in the Allina 403(b) Retirement
Savings Plan and the Allina 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan's
portfolios; failure to adequately monitor other persons to whom
they had delegated the management and administration of the Plans'
assets, despite the fact that such Defendants knew or should have
known that such other fiduciaries were failing to manage the Plans
and their investment portfolios in a prudent and loyal manner as
required by ERISA; and failure to provide adequate disclosures to
participants in the Plans regarding the fees and expenses charged
to them by third-party providers.
The Defendants operate a health care system that provides medical
care throughout Minnesota and western Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kai H. Richter, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER PLLP
4600 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: krichter@nka.com
cengstrom@nka.com
- and -
Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Julie Siebert-Johnson, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: eciolko@ktmc.com
mgyandoh@ktmc.com
jsjohnson@ktmc.com
- and -
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
BAILEY GLASSER LLP
8012 Bonhomme Avenue Suite 300
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 863-5446
Facsimile: (314) 863-5483
E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
mboyko@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
Douglas Needham, Esq.
IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 493-6292
Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
mkindall@ikrlaw.com
dneedham@ikrlaw.com
ALTA MESA: Bollenbach Suit Closed Following Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------
Alta Mesa Holdings, LP said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on August 18, 2017, that
the court has administratively closed the case filed by Bollenbach
Enterprises Limited Partnership following mediation.
Alta Mesa Holdings, LP said that "on January 25, 2017, Bollenbach
Enterprises Limited Partnership filed a class action petition in
Kingfisher County, Oklahoma against Oklahoma Energy Acquisitions,
LP, our wholly-owned subsidiary ("OEA"), Alta Mesa Services, LP,
our wholly-owned subsidiary ("AMS"), and the Company
(collectively, the "AMH Parties") claiming royalty underpayment or
non-payment of royalty. The suit against the AMH Parties alleges
that the AMH Parties made improper deductions that resulted in
underpayment of royalties on natural gas and/or constituents of
the gas stream produced from wells. The case was moved to federal
court and stayed by the court pending the parties' efforts to
settle the case. In June 2017, the court administratively closed
the case following mediation.
Alta Mesa Holdings, LP said, "the company believe losses are
probable in connection with this litigation; however, we have not
accrued a loss contingency because we are currently unable to
reasonably estimate an amount or range of loss."
Alta Mesa Holdings, LP is an onshore oil and natural gas
acquisition, exploitation, exploration and production company in
the United States since 1987. Alta Mesa Holdings, LP is based in
Houston, Texas.
ALTABA INC: Court Approves Dismissal of Claims in "Buch" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altaba, Inc. said in its Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on August 17, 2017, that
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court")
approved a Stipulation and Order Regarding Notice to Stockholders,
Dismissal of Action, and Payment of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
(the "Stipulation") entered into by the parties in the putative
class action (the "Action") captioned Buch v. Filo, et al., C.A.
No. 10933-VCL.
On August 8, 2017, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
approved a Stipulation and Order Regarding Notice to Stockholders,
Dismissal of Action, and Payment of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
entered into by the parties in the putative class action captioned
Buch v. Filo, et al., C.A. No. 10933-VCL, which was commenced on
April 22, 2015.
Plaintiff in the action alleged direct and derivative claims for
breaches of contract and fiduciary duty in connection with Yahoo!,
Inc.'s bylaws and a disclosure in the Company's proxy statement in
April 2014, related to the termination of a Company executive in
January 2014.
On June 16, 2017, Yahoo changed its name to Altaba Inc. following
the completed sale of the operating business to Verizon
Communications, Inc. and all the directors on the Board resigned
except for the following four directors: Tor R. Braham, Eric K.
Brandt, Catherine J. Friedman, and Thomas J. McInerney.
Pursuant to the Stipulation, Counts I, II, III, IV, and V are
dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiff.
Defendants denied any and all allegations of Plaintiff that
Defendants engaged in any wrongdoing. Altaba has agreed to adopt
certain governance reforms and ratified certain findings and
actions. The Company agreed to pay a mootness fee to plaintiff's
counsel.
The Company shall pay to Plaintiff's counsel attorneys' fees and
expenses in the amount of $2,385,000, and Plaintiff and
Plaintiff's counsel shall not seek any additional fees, expenses,
or costs relating to the Action from any source. Such fees, costs,
and expenses shall be paid to an account designated by Barrack,
Rodos & Bacine.
A copy of the Stipulation and Order is available at:
https://is.gd/fJRK2E
Counsel for Plaintiff Cathy Buch:
Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
Craig J. Springer, Esq.
David M. Sborz, Esq.
ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
3801 Kennett Pike
Building C, Suite 305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Tel: (302) 504-4957
- and -
Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 963-0600
- and -
Alexander Arnold Gershon, Esq.
Michael A. Toomey, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
11 Times Square, 10th Floor
640 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 688-0782
Counsel for Defendant and Nominal Defendant Yahoo! Inc.:
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP
Kathaleen S. McCormick, Esq.
Richard J. Thomas, Esq.
Rodney Square
1000 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 571-6600
- and -
Jordan Eth, Esq.
Mark R.S. Foster, Esq.
Su-Han Wang, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 268-7000
Counsel for Special Litigation Committee of Board of Directors of
Yahoo! Inc.:
MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
Michael P. Kelly, Esq.
Andrew S. Dupre, Esq.
405 North King Street, 8th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 984-6300
- and -
Sara B. Brody, Esq.
Kevin R. Rubino, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
555 California Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104
- and -
Kimberly A. Dunne, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
555 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Altaba Inc. is an investment company based in New York City.
ALVARADO MANUFACTURING: Valladares Sues over Biometric Info
-----------------------------------------------------------
BENITO VALLADARES, individually and on behalf of a Class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. ALVARADO
MANUFACTURING CO., INC., a California corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-06052 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 18, 2017), seeks to
recover damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting
from the illegal actions of Defendant in collecting, storing and
using Plaintiff's and other individuals' biometric identifiers
and/or biometric information without informed written consent, in
direct violation of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Mr. Benito Valladares, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals, brings this class action complaint
against Alvarado Manufacturing Company, Inc. to stop Defendant's
collection, use and storage of individuals' biometric information
and/or identifiers in violation of the BIPA), and to obtain
redress for all persons injured by its conduct.
A "biometric identifier" is any personal feature that is unique to
an individual, including fingerprints, iris scans, palm scans, and
DNA, among others. "Biometric information" is any information
captured, converted, stored, or shared based on a person's
biometric identifier which is used to identify an individual. The
Illinois Legislature has found that "biometrics are unlike other
unique identifiers that are used to access finances or other
sensitive information. For example, Social Security numbers, when
compromised, can be changed. Biometrics, however, are biologically
unique to the individual; therefore, once compromised, the
individual has no recourse, is at a heightened risk for identity
theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric-facilitated
transactions."
Alvarado Manufacturing, a manufacturing and systems solution firm,
designs and manufactures products and solutions that protect
assets and control the flow of people. It offers secured entry
control products, such as full height turnstiles, optical
turnstiles, waist high turnstiles, pedestrian security gates, and
accessories and adapters that work with its secured entry control
products; and sports and entertainment solutions, such as gate
admission products and systems; VenueView360, a software that
allows venues and organizations in sports and entertainment to
offer stored value and loyalty programs; and people counting
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
William P.N. Kingston, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893 7002
Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com
eturin@mcgpc.com
wkingston@mcgpc.com
AMAZON LOGISTICS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Amazon Logistics,
Inc., on behalf of the company's delivery drivers alleging that
the delivery services company illegally classified their employees
as independent contractors in order to avoid paying their share of
payroll taxes, overtime wages, and other business related
expenses. The class action lawsuit is currently pending in the San
Diego County Superior Court as Case No. 37-2017-00029426-CU-OE-
CTL.
The class action lawsuit filed by the San Diego labor attorneys
alleges that the company hires workers to aid Amazon Logistics,
Inc. in providing delivery services to customers, but alleges that
the delivery services company classifies the delivery drivers as
independent contractors (instead of as employees) in order to
avoid paying proper wages and business related expenses.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Delivery Drivers perform
work subject to the control of Amazon Logistics Inc. in that they
have the authority to exercise complete control over the work
performed and the manner and means in which the work is performed.
Additionally, the Complaint alleges that because the delivery
drivers were classified as independent contractors, these workers
were allegedly not reimbursed for business expenses including
personal vehicle usage, personal cell phone use and the expenses
incurred while making deliveries for Amazon Logistics, Inc. Under
California Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required to
indemnify employees for all expenses incurred in the course and
scope of their employment.
If you feel you have been misclassified as an independent
contractor and want to collect your unpaid wages, call Nicholas De
Blouw, an experienced San Diego employment lawyer at (800) 568 --
8020.
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, and Bhowmik represents many California
employees who have been misclassified as independent contractors.
With labor law offices located in Riverside, San Diego, Los
Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco, the labor law attorneys at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are dedicated to helping
employees throughout California protect and enforce their rights
against some of the world's largest corporations. [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Alvandi Seeks Commission Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bahram Alvandi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bahram Alvandi, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Defendants, Case No
BC673366 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
commission wages unlawfully withheld by Defendant in violations of
California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, Defendant has systematically deprived
its mortgage loan officers of commission wages earned during their
first six months of employment. Defendant's commission policies
and practices violate the contractual compensation plans accepted
by mortgage loan officers. The suit says these violate the
California Labor Code's prohibitions on deducting wages to defray
ordinary business costs and secretly paying a lower wage while
purporting to pay the wage designated by contract. They contradict
the Labor Code requirement that commission contracts be
transparent about the methods for computing and paying
commissions. They are fundamentally unfair business practices.
Defendant is a multinational banking and financial services
corporation, and offers consumers with mortgages for home purchase
and refinancing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Ricasam Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RICASA
15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 700
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 650 8077
Facsimile: (818) 301 5151
E-mail: jricasa@ricasalaw.com
- and -
Briana M. Kim, Esq.
BRIANA KIM, PC
249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (714) 482 6301
Facsimile: (714) 482 6302
E-mail: briana@brianakim.com
BAY OF PLENTY: Edgecumbe Residents Get Behind Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
New Zealand Herald reports the man behind Edgecumbe's class action
lawsuit against the Bay of Plenty Regional Council says
information regarding April's flood continues to come to light.
Rangitaiki Community Board member Graeme Bourk instigated the
class action solely to recover loss. Through his efforts he has
legal heavy-hitters Matt Josephson and David Heaney, QC,
spearheading the lawsuit.
Two hundred forty Edgecumbe residents have signed their name to
the fight with two public meetings scheduled for August 23 in the
hope of recruiting more.
"The class action is for both the insured and the uninsured," Mr
Bourk said.
"I've got fairly comprehensive insurance but, at the end of the
day, there will still be loss in the form of second-hand material
and money taken by insurance companies.
"As I see it, regional council knew that what happened on April 6
[a section of the Rangitaiki River bursting through the stop bank]
had been a possibility for some time, and that makes them liable.
"Each week we receive more information to strengthen our case."
Mr. Josephson and Mr. Heaney are in Edgecumbe and have spent
talking to people who have agreed to be part of the lawsuit.
"They're sitting down for up to two hours with each of the
people/families, and ascertaining loss. There's a lot of
groundwork going on right now and we know it will be a long time
before there is a result, but we want to do it once and do it
right."
Mr. Bourk said a top New Zealand engineer had been engaged by
those associated with the lawsuit, and had undertaken an
assessment of the April 6 events.
Meanwhile the independent review team, commissioned by the
regional council in the days after the event to look into the
infrastructure and circumstances leading to the breach, is still
carrying out its work.
The regional council review was to have been completed by the end
of July but the team requested more time.
"The outcome of regional council's review findings will have no
influence over the class action suit," Mr Bourk said.
The first of on August 16's class action public meetings begins at
6.30pm at St David's Hall on College Rd. The second starts at 7.30
at the same venue and is more specifically for farmers and other
business owners. [GN]
BLUE APRON: IPO Misleading, Shareholders Say in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Blue Apron and its stock underwriters misled investors about
the meal-kit service's business strategy and prospects, causing
its share price to fall nearly by half just two months after its
IPO, shareholders say in a federal class action in Brooklyn.
Blue Apron delivers ready-to-cook meals by mail, accompanied by
instructions. It offered shares at $10 at its initial public
offering in June, valuing itself at $1.9 billion. It raised $300
million with its IPO.
Its share price has declined steadily, to $5.39 on August 17, a
decline of 46 percent, making it the worst-performing large IPO of
2017.
Lead plaintiff Rustem Nurlybayev sued Blue Apron, CEO Matt
Salzberg, Goldman Sachs and 10 other underwriters of the company's
IPO on August 17.
Nurlybayev claims that one week ago Blue Apron "shocked the stock
market by announcing significant undisclosed problems, lowering
its guidance for the second half of 2017, and stating that it
planned to change its strategic approach for managing the business
for the remainder of 2017."
According to the 26-page lawsuit, the company's registration
statements failed to disclose that it already had decided to
significantly reduce spending on advertising, which would hurt
sales, and that it was suffering delays in receiving ingredients
on time, hurting customer retention.
Nurlybayev says investors should have been told that "the delays
being experienced by the company would hurt the company's bottom
line in the near-term, particularly affecting the important metric
of lifetime value per customer, or the net profit Blue Apron makes
off a customer."
The company recorded 18 percent revenue growth in the second
quarter of this fiscal year, but only by reducing advertising
expenses from $61 million to $35 million, according to the
complaint.
"This emergency reduction in advertising spending was not
disclosed in the prospectus, and was hardly what investors
expected from a company which stated it was rapidly expanding and
that increased spending on advertising was key to the company's
new product initiatives and future success," the complaint states.
Nurlybayev seeks class certification, a jury trial, and damages
for three counts of violations of the Securities Act.
Blue Apron could not be reached for comment after business hours
on August 17.
The case is captioned, RUSTEM NURLYBAYEV, Individually and on
Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, VS. BLUE APRON
HOLDINGS, INC., MATTHEW B. SALZBERG, ILIA M. PAPAS, MATTHEW J.
WADIAK, JARED CLUFF, PABLO CUSSATTI, BENJAMIN C. SINGER, JULIE
M.B. BRADLEY, TRACY BRITT COOL, KENNETH A. FOX, ROBERT P. GOODMAN,
GARY R. HIRSHBERG, BRIAN P. KELLEY, BRADLEY J. DICKERSON, GOLDMAN
SACHS & CO. LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., RBC CAPITAL
MARKETS, LLC, SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., STIFEL, NICOLAUS &
COMPANY, INCORPORATED, CANACCORD GENUITY INC., NEEDHAM & COMPANY,
LLC, OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., and
WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., Defendants. Case 1:17-cv-
04846(E.D.N.Y., August 17, 2017).
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Fred T. Isguith, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
- and -
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 914-2001
Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
BLUE CROSS: 31 Suits Allege Mishandling of Benefit Plan Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thirty one lawsuits have been filed against Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Michigan. The Plaintiffs bring the lawsuits to recover
misappropriated funds and obtain all other relief to which they
are entitled.
According to the complaint, each of the Plaintiffs entrusted BCBSM
to administer its self-insured employee benefit Plan. Pursuant to
their contract, Plaintiffs sent large sums of money to BCBSM,
which BCBSM was supposed to use to pay employee health care
claims. The Plaintiffs recently learned that, contrary to their
contract and numerous specific claims reports, BCBSM also skimmed
additional administrative fees from the Plan assets Plaintiffs
provided on behalf of the Plan to pay claims. BCBSM's
misappropriation of Plan assets is a clear violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. In fact, BCBSM's
scheme has already been adjudicated by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as fraudulent and unlawful.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is an independent licensee of
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Currently it is headquartered
in 600 E. Lafayette Blvd. in downtown Detroit.
The 31 lawsuits are captioned as:
AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES, INC. AND AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES, INC.
EMPLOYEE HEALTH PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF
MICHIGAN, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12581-LJM-DRG (E.D.
Mich., Aug. 8, 2017);
ARTIFLEX MANUFACTURING, LLC AND ARTIFLEX MANUFACTURING, LLC
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD
OF MICHIGAN, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12616-BAF-DRG (E.D.
Mich., Aug. 10, 2017);
AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, and THE AUTO CLUB GROUP MEDICAL
CARE PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12640-GCS-APP (E.D. Mich., Aug.
11, 2017);
AUTOCAM CORPORATION and ITS EMPLOYEE WELFARE BENEFITS PLAN, the
Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-12608-MFL-APP (E.D. Mich., Aug. 10, 2017);
DECORATIVE PANELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND DECORATIVE PANELS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. MASTER WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, the Plaintiffs,
v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-12584-JEL-PTM (E.D. Mich., Aug. 9, 2017);
DELTA FAUCET COMPANY AND ALSONS CORP. EMPLOYEES GROUP INSURANCE
PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12582-PDB-RSW (E.D. Mich., Aug. 9,
2017);
DURA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, LLC and ITS EMPLOYEE WELFARE BENEFITS
PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12571-RHC-RSW (E.D. Mich., Aug. 9,
2017);
GARDNER WHITE FURNITURE CO., INC. AND GARDNER WHITE FURNITURE CO.,
INC. WELFARE PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF
MICHIGAN, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12651-PDB-RSW (E.D.
Mich., Aug. 11, 2017);
GENERAL DIE CASTING COMPANY AND GENERAL DIE CASTING EMPLOYEE
WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF
MICHIGAN, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12604-TGB-MKM (E.D.
Mich., Aug. 9, 2017);
HEALTHSOURCE SAGINAW, INC. AND HEALTHSOURCE SAGINAW GROUP HEALTH
CARE PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-12632-DML-PTM (E.D. Mich., Aug.
11, 2017);
HILLSDALE COLLEGE AND MED-DEN INS EXCESS, AGG CVGE & LIFE
HILLSDALE COLLEGE PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD
OF MICHIGAN, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12648-GAD-APP (E.D.
Mich., Aug. 11, 2017);
IMLACH MOVERS, INC. AND IMLACH MOVERS, INC. WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN,
the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12645-BAF-MKM (E.D. Mich., Aug. 11,
2017);
L. E. JONES COMPANY, LLC AND L. E. JONES CO. GROUP HEALTH PLAN,
the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12635-SFC-EAS (E.D. Mich., Aug. 11,
2017);
LEAR CORPORATION AND LEAR CORPORATION EMPLOYEE WELFARE BENEFIT
PLAN,, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-12634-LVP-SDD (E.D. Mich., Aug. 11,
2017);
MAYCO INTERNATIONAL, LLC f/k/a and a/k/a NJT ENTERPRISES LLC,
MAYCO INTERNATIONAL LLC SALARIED EMPLOYEES HEALTH PLAN, MAYCO
INTERNATIONAL LLC HOURLY EMPLOYEES HEALTH PLAN, JVIS MANUFACTURING
LLC, ATLANTIC AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS, L.L.C. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN,
TRANSGLOBAL DESIGN & MANUFACTURING, LLC, AND TRANSGLOBAL DESIGN &
MANUFACTURING, LLC WELFARE PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS
BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12649-
VAR-RSW (E.D. Mich., Aug. 11, 2017);
N-K MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC AND NK MANUFACTURING
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE
CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
12650-DPH-DRG (E.D. Mich., Aug. 11, 2017);
OAKLAND STAMPING, LLC AND OAKLAND STAMPING HEALTH & WELFARE PLAN,
the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-12638-JCO-SDD (E.D. Mich., Aug. 11,
2017);
OPTIMAL COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING, INC. AND OPTIMAL COMPUTER
AIDED ENGINEERING, INC. EMPLOYEE WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, the
Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-12633-AJT-SDD (E.D. Mich., Aug. 11, 2017);
PHILLIPS SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC. AND PHILLIPS SERVICE INDUSTRIES,
INC. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE
SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12652-GCS-EAS
(E.D. Mich., Aug. 11, 2017);
RHEMA HOLDINGS, LLC AND RHEMA HOLDINGS, LLC HEALTH & WELFARE PLAN,
the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12595-LJM-MKM (E.D. Mich., Aug. 9,
2017);
RITSEMA ASSOCIATES AND RITSEMA ASSOCIATES WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN,
the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12596-PDB-RSW (E.D. Mich., Aug. 9,
2017);
ROSS EDUCATION, LLC AND ROSS EDUCATION, LLC EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12600-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich., Aug. 9,
2017);
THOMAS A. BRUINSMA, BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF FUEL SYSTEMS,
INC. AND FUEL SYSTEMS, INC. EMPLOYEE WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, the
Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the Defendant,
Case No2:17-cv-12585-DML-APP. (E.D. Mich., Aug. 9, 2017);
THYSSENKRUPP MATERIALS NA, INC., THYSSENKRUPP NORTH AMERICA, INC.
AND THYSSENKRUPP NORTH AMERICA HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN, the
Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-12653-AC-RSW (E.D. Mich., Aug. 11, 2017);
TI GROUP AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, LLC and ITS EMPLOYEE WELFARE BENEFITS
PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12621-DML-MKM (E.D. Mich., Aug. 10,
2017);
TRANS-MATIC MFG. CO., INCORPORATED AND TRANS-MATIC EMPLOYEE
BENEFIT PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF
MICHIGAN, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12601-JCO-DRG (E.D.
Mich., Aug. 9, 2017);
UNIFIED BRANDS, INC. f/k/a RANDELL MFG., INC. AND UNIFIED BRANDS,
INC. WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE
SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-12594-PDB-PTM
(E.D. Mich., Aug. 9, 2017);
W & P MANAGEMENT LLC ANDW AND P MANAGEMENT GROUP INSURANCE PLAN,
the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-12602-MFL-RSW (E.D. Mich., Aug. 9,
2017);
WENDRICKS TRUSS, INC. AND WENDRICKS TRUSS, INC. EMPLOYEE WELFARE
BENEFIT PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF
MICHIGAN, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12603-RHC-DRG (E.D.
Mich., Aug. 9, 2017);
WILLIAMS CHEVROLET, INC. AND WILLIAMS CHEVROLET, INC. EMPLOYEE
WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF
MICHIGAN, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12606-MAG-APP (E.D.
Mich., Aug. 9, 2017); and
WINDSTREAM SERVICES, LLC, AS SUCCESSOR TO US XCHANGE, L.L.C. and
THE U.S. XCHANGE, LLC EMPLOYEE WELFARE PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v.
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-12631-GCS-EAS (E.D. Mich., Aug. 11, 2017).[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Aaron M. Phelps, Esq.
VARNUM LLP
Bridgewater Place, PO Box 352
Grand Rapids, MI, 49501-0352
Telephone: (616) 336 6000
Facsimile: (616) 336 7000
E-mail: amphelps@varnumlaw.com
BLUE PACIFIC: "Chun" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Ping Yim and Ji Zhao, Individually and on behalf of All Other
Employees Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Blue Pacific,
Inc. d/b/a 110 Japan, Sonny Lin, Hong "John" (Middle Name Unknown)
Lin, "John" (First Name Unknown) Wen, "Jane" (First Name Unknown)
Wen, Kan Pat Kong, Sau Man Kong, D Shek Yee, Bonny "Doe" (Last
Name Unknown), Li Chen, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04881
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
unlawful retention of tips, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a
pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiffs, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek.
Blue Pacific owns and operates a Japanese restaurant in Suffolk
County located at 179 Walt Whitman Rd, Huntington Station, NY
11746.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jian Hang, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
Flushing, NY, 11354
Telephone: (718) 353 8588
E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com
BLUESTEM BRANDS: Williams Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
WADDELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLUESTEM BRANDS INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 8:17-cv-01971-JDW-AAS (M.D. Fla., Aug. 18, 2017), seeks
to recover damages as a result of Defendant's unsolicited
telephone calls.
According to the complaint, Defendant routinely violated the TCPA
by placing non-emergency telephone calls to consumers' cellular
telephone numbers by using an automatic telephone dialing system
or an artificial or prerecorded voice, without the prior express
consent of the consumers, in that Defendant routinely dials wrong
or reassigned telephone numbers that do not belong to the intended
recipients of the calls. The Plaintiff suffered harm as a result
of Defendant's telephone calls at issue in that he suffered an
invasion of his privacy, an intrusion into his life, and a private
nuisance.
Bluestem Brands, a multi-brand online retailer, provides a
selection of name-brand, private label, and non-branded
merchandise through Internet Websites and catalogs serving low to
middle income consumers in the United States. It offers home
products, including housewares, bed and bath products, lawn and
garden products, home furnishings, and hardware products;
entertainment products, such as electronics, video games, toys,
and sporting goods; and fashion products comprising apparel,
footwear, cosmetics, fragrances, and jewelry under the
Appleseed's, Bedford Fair, Blair, Draper's & Damon's, Fingerhut,
Gettington, Gold Violin, Haband, LinenSource, Norm Thompson, and
Old Pueblo Traders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
James J. Davison, Esq.
Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 826 5477
Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
jdavison@gdrlawfirm.com
jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com
BONNEVILLE BILLING: Faces "Unsworth" Suit in District of Utah
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bonneville Billing
and Collections doing business as: Bonneville Collections. The
case is styled as Alexx Unsworth individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bonneville Billing and
Collections doing business as: Bonneville Collections, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00135-DBP (D. UT., August 24, 2017).
Bonneville Billing and Collections is a collection agency.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Theron D. Morrison, Esq.
MORRISON + MURFF
290 25TH ST STE 102
OGDEN, UT 84401
Tel: (801) 392-9324
Email: therondmorrison@gmail.com
BOS SOLUTIONS: "Kolasa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Kolasa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bos Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01087-MPK (W.D.
Penn., August 18, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Bos Solutions, Inc. is a provider of solids and liquids waste
separation solutions operating throughout the United States,
including Pennsylvania and Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (412) 766-1455
Facsimile: (412)766-0300
E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
BRUCE MONK: Faces Suit Over Photos of Underage Ballet Dancers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Mandel, writing for Toronto Sun, reports they were
aspiring ballet dancers who travelled from Toronto and cities
across Canada to realize their dreams at the renowned Royal
Winnipeg Ballet School.
But in a proposed $185 million class action lawsuit filed by Sarah
Doucet of Toronto on behalf of her fellow underage students, she
alleges they were coerced into posing for lurid photos by teacher
Bruce Monk who then sold their images online without their
knowledge or consent.
In the statement of claim, former dance students from 1987 to 2015
contend the ballet and their teacher owed them a duty of care to
educate them and nurture their career aspirations while providing
a safe environment.
"All these duties were violated when Monk coerced and compelled
many of the Ballet's students into undressing and posing nude or
semi-nude for intimate photographs, causing them profound
humiliation and fear of imminent physical and sexual violation,"
the statement of claim alleges.
The claim is seeking $85 million in damages from Monk and $100
million from the Royal Winnipeg Ballet,
According to lawyer Margaret Waddell, Esq. --
marg@waddellphillips.ca -- of Phillips Gill LLP, they've
discovered more than 115 photos of former students online that
identify Monk as the photographer. And the fallout has been
difficult for the women, she said. Doucet, in her early '40s, is
in a "fragile state" and has been diagnosed with clinical
depression.
In the lawsuit, Doucet alleges Monk was the ballet school's
unofficial photographer. When she was 16 or 17, she says she
approached Monk to take photos for her portfolio. He called her in
on a Sunday and they began the photo shoot in the dance studio
before he suggested they move to a small, private office on the
third floor, the claim states.
"He soon complained that the straps of her bodysuit were ruining
her neckline and coerced her into removing the top half of the
bodysuit, so that her torso was naked," says the statement of
claim. "Although Sarah was reluctant and embarrassed, Monk was
insistent and used his position of authority as well as his
intimidating physical presence over Sarah to bend her to his
will."
"Sarah obeyed as the Ballet had taught her, and Monk proceeded to
photograph her with her top removed."
Embarrassed and humiliated, she told no one and soon left the
school, the lawsuit says.
"Over the years, as the School took no steps to stop Monk from
photographing the Student Class in private and in nude and semi-
nude states, Monk became increasingly emboldened and the
photographs progressed to becoming increasingly pornographic," the
statement of claim contends.
This isn't the first time these explosive allegations have been
made against Monk, whose art prints have been prized in galleries,
private collections and the Canadian Museum of Contemporary
Photography.
After accusations first surfaced in a Macleans article in 2015,
Monk was fired from the ballet school where he'd taught for 25
years. Winnipeg police launched an investigation but later
announced no charges would be laid.
Two other lawsuits have been filed against him by former dance
students, one in Winnipeg and another in Waterloo.
None of the allegations in the class action have been proven and
neither the school nor Monk have yet filed a statement of defence.
Monk's lawyer did not return a request for comment.
"When initial allegations against this individual came to light
approximately two-and-a-half years ago, the RWB removed him from
his role and subsequently terminated him," said Kate Fennell,
director of school operations.
"The RWB is committed to the safety, security and well-being of
every student entrusted to our care and we take this
responsibility very seriously," she said. "We have a number of
protocols in place to safeguard our students, and these are
reviewed on a regular basis."
Citing the matter is before the courts, Fennell wouldn't comment
directly on the allegations.
The lawsuit claims Monk has been selling his large "cache" of
intimate photos over eBay, Worthpoint and other online sites for
years without the women's permission or even knowledge. Many only
learned of the violation through the Macleans' article in April
2015, leaving the former students feeling humiliated and
powerless, the claim states.
The class action is seeking a permanent injunction against Monk's
selling their images and destruction of any photos still in his
possession.
In the meantime, against their will, their naked bodies dance on
through the Internet and beyond. [GN]
CARIBOU COFFEE: Settles TCPA Class Action for $8.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
ABC 5 reports Caribou Coffee has reached a $8.5 million settlement
in a class action lawsuit claiming it had sent text messages to
phone numbers without prior written consent of the holders of
those phone numbers.
The Brooklyn Center-based coffee shop chain denied the
allegations, but agreed to discontinue its text marketing
programs.
The lawsuit claims the messages were sent between May 5, 2012, and
July 28, 2017.
The $8.5 million will be used to make cash payments to those who
submit valid claims and attorneys' fees.
Those who plan to file a claim may do so here by Nov. 13, 2017.
[GN]
CENTURYLINK INC: Scott Sues over Service & Billing Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA SCOTT, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. CENTURYLINK,
INC., a Louisiana corporation, CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
CENTURYLINK SALES SOLUTIONS, INC., and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00687-GAF (W.D. Mo., Aug. 18, 2017), seeks restitution and all
other forms of equitable monetary relief as a result of
Defendants' unfair and deceptive acts and practices in regard to
its sale of the CenturyLink Services without proper disclosure.
The case is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of all
consumers in the United States who purchased any services from
Defendants and were overcharged. CenturyLink has long been the
subject of complaints regarding service and billing practices.
Complaints of these practices can be found myriad places and seem
to grow daily. The complaints are not limited to consumers, in
fact at least one employee has decided to highlight the billing
practices engaged in by Defendants.
In mid-June of this year, a former CenturyLink employee, Heidi
Heiser, filed a whistleblower complaint in the Superior Court of
Arizona. In her complaint she alleged that she was terminated for
reporting to her supervisors and the CEO unlawful billing
practices she observed and refused to take part in as a sales
representative. Consumers throughout the nation have experienced
ever fluctuating bills, rates higher than promised, failure to
provide services as promised, charging for items and services not
bargained for.
CenturyLink offers long distance telecommunication services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tim E. Dollar, Esq.
Tom Hershewe, Esq.
DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER, L.C.
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 876 2600
Facsimile: (816) 221 8763
E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com
CHAVAL AL HAZMAN: Faces "Rosales" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chaval Al Hazman
Inc. The case is styled as Maria Elena Morales Rosales,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated and
Alejandro Espinoza Zuniga, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Chaval Al Hazman Inc., doing
business as: Chaval Al Hazman, Neftali Vizel, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-04991-DMM (E.D. N.Y., August 23, 2017).
Chaval Al Hazman Inc. does business in the restaurant industry.
The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE.
CHICAGO, IL: Faces "Lintzeris" Suit over Impoundment Ordinance
--------------------------------------------------------------
RITA LINTZERIS, STEVEN MORAITIS, WILLIAM MORAITIS, ZARON JOSSELL,
and CLARENCE DANIELS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a
Municipal Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-11365 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Aug. 18, 2017), seeks to recover monetary, declaratory,
equitable and injunctive relief, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, based on the City's illegal practice of
collecting Administrative Penalties pursuant to the invalid
Impoundment Ordinance, and refusing to acknowledge that Section
208.7 prohibits the practice.
According to the complaint, despite full knowledge that the
Impoundment Ordinance is invalid and violates state law, the City
continues to enforce the Impoundment Ordinance and, absent the
intervention of this Court, the unlawful impoundments and
collection of unlawful "Administrative Penalties" and/or
destruction of vehicles will continue, harming Plaintiffs and
other class members.
Chicago, on Lake Michigan in Illinois, is among the largest cities
in the U.S. Famed for its bold architecture, it has a skyline
punctuated by skyscrapers such as the iconic John Hancock
Center.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles F. Morrissey, Esq.
Darnell R. Donahue, Esq.
Cassie R. S. Stockert, Esq.
MORRISSEY & DONAHUE, LLC
55 E. Monroe, Suite 2905
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 967 1200
E-mail: cfin@morrisseydonahue.com
drd@morrisseydonahue.com
crss@morrisseydonahue.com
CIRCLE K: Faces Class Action Over Beverage Tax
----------------------------------------------
Lauren Zumbach and Becky Yerak, writing for Chicago Tribune,
report that Cook County officials say they've solved a problem
with the new sweetened beverage tax that put roughly $87 million
in funding used to run the federal food stamp program in Illinois
at risk of being withheld.
Purchases made with federal food stamp benefits are exempt from
the penny-per-ounce tax on sweetened beverages, but the county's
regulation gave stores that hadn't been able to program point-of-
sale systems not to tax those purchases the option of charging the
tax and then issuing a refund.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Services,
which oversees the food stamp program called SNAP, or Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, warned state officials that allowing
refunds ran afoul of rules barring retailers from charging SNAP
recipients the tax at any time.
The county solved the issue by striking language permitting
refunds from the regulation, which "will ensure ongoing access of
SNAP benefits for eligible Illinois households," county spokesman
Frank Shuftan said in a statement on August 17.
The USDA confirmed that the county notified the agency that it had
corrected the issue.
In an August 17 letter to the Illinois Department of Human
Services, Cook County Director of Revenue Zahra Ali said county
officials had not been aware permitting refunds was unacceptable.
Under the revised regulations, retailers unable to program point-
of-sale machines not to charge the tax must find an alternative,
such as a "manual override" to avoid charging the customer the
tax.
"We believe Cook County has taken the appropriate steps to come
into compliance with federal guidelines," Meghan Powers, a
spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Human Services, wrote
in an email. "We appreciate Cook County's prompt response on the
issue and the collaboration that occurred from all levels of
government."
Rob Karr, Illinois Retail Merchants Association president and CEO,
expressed frustration on August 17 with the way the county handled
the situation, saying its solution "essentially tells retailers
they have to figure it out themselves."
It's not known how many Cook County retailers are applying the tax
to SNAP purchases and then offering refunds.
But another retailer is facing a lawsuit alleging it botched the
rollout of the tax, this time by double-taxing a customer's
sweetened beverage purchases.
Lawsuit against McDonald's over Cook County soda tax dismissed
Tinley Park resident Diane Kramer accused Circle K of overcharging
her sales tax when she bought sweetened beverages at stores in
Orland Hills, Tinley Park, Oak Forest and Chicago, according to a
lawsuit filed on August 16 in Cook County Circuit Court.
The sweetened beverage tax "is not to be added to the pretax price
of the good, but is itself to be added to the existing sales tax,"
the lawsuit says.
Kramer said she shopped at Circle K on Aug. 9 and Aug. 10 and the
soda tax was combined with the pretax price for the order to
arrive at a subtotal. Kramer was then charged sales tax on that
amount -- effectively taxing the tax, the suit alleges.
Five receipts were included with the lawsuit. Most showed only a
beverage purchase. One receipt, for example, showed that she
bought a 20-ounce pop for 79 cents and was charged a 20-cent soda
tax, coming to a 99-cent subtotal. She was charged an additional
tax of 10 cents on that subtotal, according to one of the receipts
filed with the lawsuit.
Feds say Cook County soda tax collection violates food stamp rules
The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was filed by the
same lawyer who sued McDonald's last week, also alleging double
taxation. The lawsuit against McDonald's was voluntarily dismissed
earlier this week. "Because plaintiff has no reason to believe
that customers were 'double taxed' at any other McDonald's
restaurant in Cook County, plaintiff voluntarily dismisses his
lawsuit," the judge wrote.
Circle K couldn't be reached for immediate comment.
Kramer seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages equal to at
least 1 percent of the annual revenue of each of the Circle K
stores during each year in which the violations occurred. [GN]
CONAGRA: Brief Says 3rd Circuit 'Sprinting' From CA Precedent
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel of Reuters wrote that in a supplemental brief filed
on August 18 at the U.S. Supreme Court, plaintiffs in a false
labeling case against Conagra argue that a decision by the 3rd
U.S. Circuit Court proves there's no need for the justices to
insert themselves into a class action issue percolating in federal
appellate courts.
The 3rd Circuit, according to the brief, had been the notable
exception to a fast-developing appellate consensus on the so-
called ascertainability test courts should apply when considering
plaintiffs' proposed methods of identifying members of the class.
But the Conagra plaintiffs contend that in the 3rd Circuit's
ruling in City Select Auto v. BMW Bank of North America, the court
is backpedaling as fast as it can from its own precedent.
City Select, the new brief argues, is "a clear and significant
repudiation" of the 3rd Circuit's rigorous ascertainability
standard, which lies at the heart of Conagra's request for Supreme
Court review of the 9th Circuit's contrary holding in its case.
"At bottom, City Select Auto provides further evidence that all
circuits are converging," the new brief said. "In the meantime,
there is no need for this court to intervene."
"As you probably know -- and as I've been reporting exhaustively!
-- the Conagra petition awaits the justices when they return from
their summer break in September. Conagra, represented by Jones
Day, contends the court must resolve a split between the 3rd
Circuit -- whose precedent insists that plaintiffs cannot be
certified as a class without providing an objective and
administratively feasible way to ascertain class membership -- and
several other appellate courts, including the 9th Circuit in its
case," the writer says.
Conagra submitted its reply brief on July 5. In the ordinary
course, that would have been the last word before the Supreme
Court's first conference of the term on Sept. 25. But it's been a
summer of appellate foment on ascertainability. In the week after
Conagra's reply brief, both the 2nd and 6th Circuits issued
decisions refining their precedent on the issue. The 2nd Circuit,
which Conagra had described as a 3rd Circuit ally, sided in In re
Petrobras with the 7th and 9th Circuits in explicitly rejecting
the 3rd Circuit ascertainability test. The 6th Circuit, though,
seemed in Sandusky Wellness Center v. ASD Specialty Healthcare to
inch closer to the 3rd Circuit's standard.
Both Conagra and the class action plaintiffs who oppose review
submitted supplemental briefs to the Supreme Court in July to
address the new appellate rulings. Conagra emphasized the need for
Supreme Court guidance amidst uncertainty in the lower courts. The
plaintiffs highlighted an emerging consensus that the 3rd
Circuit's test is too stringent.
On August 16, the 3rd Circuit unquestionably added to the drama in
its City Select decision, which revived a Telephone Consumer
Protection Act class action in which the plaintiffs would have to
rely partly on sworn affidavits to identify class members. The 3rd
Circuit has previously held that sworn affidavits in consumer
class actions are not a sufficiently reliable and administratively
feasible means of ascertaining class members.
But in City Select, the appeals court said that because plaintiffs
proposed first narrowing the universe of potential class members
by using a database of fax recipients, sworn affidavits were a
reasonable way to refine class membership. The opinion was written
by Judge Anthony Scirica, who previously wrote one of the 3rd
Circuit's seminal ascertainability decisions, Bayer v. Carrera.
Judge Julio Fuentes, who previously called on his 3rd Circuit
colleagues to reconsider the Carrera decision en banc, wrote a
concurrence in City Select reiterating that call.
"I had described the City Select decision as a small step back
from 3rd Circuit ascertainability, since Judge Scirica emphasized
the factual difference between City Select and the 3rd Circuit's
previous ascertainability cases. The judge did not acknowledge
that the court was rethinking ascertainability. In fact, he said
the three principles that led the 3rd Circuit to impose its
heightened test continue to demand rigorous scrutiny from trial
courts weighing class certification," the writer adds.
But the Conagra plaintiffs, represented by Samuel Issacharoff of
New York University, read the 3rd Circuit's City Select opinion as
a repudiation of the court's precedent. "The 3rd Circuit did not
simply 'walk back its position; rather, it sprinted as far back as
it could (as a panel) in narrowing ascertainability," the new
brief said. "Realistically, the panel did all that it could to
reject its early articulation of the ascertainability test without
directly overruling prior precedent (which only the en banc court
can do)."
It's significant, according to the new brief, that the majority
opinion did not specifically reject Judge Fuentes' "invitation to
join all other circuits that have considered seriously the
ascertainability issue."
As of August 18 at noon, Conagra hadn't disclosed whether it will
also file a brief addressing the 3rd Circuit ruling.
"I want to close with an explanation of why I've so closely
covered every twist and turn of the ascertainability issue at the
Supreme Court. I'm hardly the first person to point this out, but
there are two fundamentally different ways to think about class
actions: as a mere procedural mechanism to promote efficiency by
aggregating identical claims; or as vehicle for accountability, in
which little guys band together to gain leverage against big guys.
Sometimes those visions overlap. Often they don't -- and
ascertainability is a key point of divergence. The Supreme Court's
decision whether to grant Conagra's petition for review will
reveal a lot about how this newly composed court sees class
actions," the writer concludes. [GN]
CONCEPT AUTO: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Hernandez" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arnaldo Moinello Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Concept Auto, Inc., Mike Kvachuk, and Marat
Kvachuk, Case No. 1:17-cv-23143-JEM (S.D. Fla., August 18, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.
The Defendants operate a used car dealership company in Miami-Dade
County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J.H. Zidell, Esq.
J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Telephone: (305) 865-6766
Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
CRESCENT CONSULTING: Consultants Class Certified in Whitlow Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David L. Russell granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the lawsuit
titled TOMMY WHITLOW, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals v. CRESCENT CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 5:16-
cv-01330-R (W.D. Okla.).
The Court conditionally certifies a class consisting of all
persons that served as drilling consultants for Crescent
Consulting, LLC, and were paid as independent contractors, that
were provided a 1099 rather than a W-2, and paid a "day-rate"
without overtime at any time since April 29, 2014.
Judge Russell opines, among other things, that the Court concurs
with the Defendant's contention that the proposed notice should be
amended to clarify that the Court is impartial. Hence, Judge
Russell states certain amendment to the proposed notice.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IREHSLp7
DELL'ORO GROUP: Weckel Seeks Refund over Use of Personal Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN WECKEL, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DELL'ORO GROUP, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 17CIV03827 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 22, 2017),
seeks to recover award, costs of suit, relief as penalties, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code.
According to the complaint, Dell'Oro employed Mr. Weckel from May
8, 2006, until his resignation on January 3, 2017 as an analyst.
During his employment with Dell'Oro, Mr. Weckel spent a
substantial amount of time working from home or attending out-of-
office meetings. Dell'Oro required Mr. Weckel, along with other
Dell'Oro employees, to use personal electronic devices to perform
work for Dell'Oro. Dell'Oro did not reimburse employees for use of
their personal computers, phones or internet service providers for
business purposes, forcing its employees, including Mr. Weckel, to
use their personal smartphones and computers and to send and
receive work emails and make work-related calls at the employees'
expense.
Dell'Oro Group provides market information about networking and
telecommunications industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew Lewis, Esq.
THE LEWIS LAW OFFICE
380 Hamilton Ave. Suite 433
Palo Alto, CA 94302
Telephone: (650) 665 9243
E-mail: drew@lewislg.com
DEPOMED INC: Faces "Huang" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Inchen Huang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Depomed, Inc., Arthur Joseph Higgins, James A.
Schoeneck, and August J. Moretti, Case No. 3:17-cv-04830 (N.D.
Cal., August 18, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (i) Depomed engaged in questionable practices in
connection with the sales and marketing of the Company's opioid
products; (ii) the foregoing conduct, when it became known, would
likely subject the Company to heightened legal and regulatory
scrutiny; and (iii) as a result, Depomed's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Depomed, Inc. operates a specialty pharmaceutical company, and
engages in the development, sale, and licensing of products for
pain and other central nervous system conditions in the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
468 North Camden Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (818) 532-6499
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
DEPOMED INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Depomed, Inc. ("Depomed" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:DEPO)
and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Northern District of California, and
docketed under 17-cv-04830, is on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Depomed securities,
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Depomed securities between
February 26, 2015 and August 7, 2017, both dates inclusive, you
have until October 17, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529
(or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-
mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and number of shares purchased.
Depomed, a specialty pharmaceutical company, engages in the
development, sale, and licensing of products for pain and other
central nervous system conditions in the United States. Among
other drugs, Depomed's portfolio includes the opioids Nucynta
(tapentadol) and Lazanda (fentanyl).
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Depomed engaged in
questionable practices in connection with the sales and marketing
of the Company's opioid products; (ii) the foregoing conduct, when
it became known, would likely subject the Company to heightened
legal and regulatory scrutiny; and (iii) as a result, Depomed's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On August 7, 2017, post-market, Depomed disclosed that the Company
"recently received a request for information from the ranking
minority member of the United States Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs related to the promotion of
opioids" and that Depomed had also received "subpoenas related to
opioid sales and marketing from the Office of the Attorney General
of Maryland and the United States Department of Justice."
On this news, Depomed's share price fell $3.09, or 33.42%, to
close at $6.15 on August 8, 2017.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]
DLC LIMOUSINE: Munoz-Gonzalez Appeals Order & Accord to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alejandro Munoz-Gonzalez, et al., filed an appeal from
a District Court opinion and order dated July 12, 2017, and the
District Court stipulation to dismiss Plaintiffs' second claim
without prejudice dated August 2, 2017, in the lawsuit styled
Munoz-Gonzalez, et al. v. D.L.C. Limousine Service, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 15-cv-9368, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).
The Plaintiffs-Appellants are Alejandro Munoz-Gonzalez, Thomas
Acheampong, John A. Anderson, Peter Befi, Daniel Bennett
Lilienfeld, Abdelouahad Benouara, Raymond A. Brooks, Michael F.
Curran, Edward Dapice, Michael DeJoseph, Darrin R. Dean, Leonard
A. Dimase, Timothy Geiger, Kwame Gyamfi, Edward W. Henry, Danual
Martin, Richard W. Nosher, Jr., Massimo Novello, Maurice Pearson,
Dennis Saddlemir, Frank J. Savarese, John Richard Tocco, Edward
Vasquez and Abraham Weinstein.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks damages and equitable relief for the Defendant's alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law against former and current drivers.
The appellate case is captioned as Munoz-Gonzalez, et al. v.
D.L.C. Limousine Service, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-2438, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:
Jeffrey Robert Maguire, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
1010 Northern Boulevard
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-0627
E-mail: jrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com
Defendants-Appellees D.L.C. Limousine Service, Inc.; Chris
Thornton, individually; John D'Agostino and Melissa Thornton,
individually, are represented by:
Ian Clarke-Fisher, Esq.
ROBINSON & COLE LLP
666 3rd Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 451-2974
Facsimile: (212) 451-2999
E-mail: iclarke-fisher@rc.com
DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Drake et al. Sue over Sweetened Beverage Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES DRAKE and MARIO ALIANO, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES,
INC., a Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2017CH11351
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Aug. 18, 2017), seeks injunctive relief to ensure
that Defendant updates its Subway stores' POS systems to properly
assess the sweetened beverage tax.
The case is a class action brought on behalf of the class of
persons, who were improperly charged the Cook County sweetened
beverage tax by Subway stores on their retail purchases of
unsweetened beverages in Cook County, Illinois. The Cook County
Sweetened Beverage Tax Ordinance imposes a tax at the rate of
$0.01 per ounce on the retail sale of all sweetened beverages in
Cook County, Illinois. Notwithstanding the requirements in the
Cook County Sweetened Beverage Tax Ordinance, Defendant charged
Plaintiffs the sweetened beverage tax on their purchases of
unsweetened tea, resulting in an unlawful tax charge. Under the
direction of Defendant, Subway retail stores are automatically and
uniformly charging the sweetened beverage tax on all purchases in
fountain drink cups regardless of whether the consumer is
purchasing a sweetened beverage in the cup. The Defendant's acts
and omissions allegedly violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Doctor's Associates Inc., doing business as Subway, owns and
operates a chain of sandwich restaurants in the United States and
internationally. The company offers various food and catering
menus. It also provides franchise opportunities.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Esq.
Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone (312) 440 0020
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
sharon@attorneyzim.com
matt@attorneyzim.com
nick@attorneyzim.com
maebetty@attorneyzim.com
FAGRON INC: Bobo's Drugs Files Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
BOBO'S DRUGS, INC. d/b/a DAVIS ISLANDS PHARMACY, individually and
as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. FAGRON, INC., FAGRON ACADEMY, LLC, FAGRON
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, LLC, FAGRON HOLDING USA, LLC, and B&B
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants, Case No: 8:17-cv-01862-CEH-TBM
(M.D. Fla., August 7, 2017), alleges that Defendants have sent
advertisements by facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
One fax advertises the quality or availability of the Fagron
Academy Compounding Technical Services, a continuing education
program. The other fax advertises the quality or availability of
pharmaceuticals. Plaintiff did not expressly consent to receive
any advertisement from Defendants by fax. Moreover, Plaintiff does
not have an established business relationship with Defendants.
Fagron Academy is engaged in the business of the wholesale and
distribution of active and inactive pharmaceutical ingredients,
bases, supplies, and equipment; education related to the
compounding of customized medication; and consulting with
compounding pharmacies regarding matters related to
pharmaceuticals. Plaintiff, Bobo's Drugs, Inc. d/b/a Davis
Islands Pharmacy, is an independent pharmacy located in Tampa,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
134 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1000
Chicago, IL 60602
P.O. Box 416474
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Phone: 312-658-5500
Fax: 312-658-5555
Email: service@classlawyers.com
FENIX PARTS: New Jersey Securities Class Action Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Fenix Parts, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission on August 16, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a class action has been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
In January 2017, a class action lawsuit entitled Beezley v. Fenix
Parts, Inc. et al, was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey against Fenix Parts, Inc., Kent
Robertson, its President and Chief Executive Officer, and Scott
Pettit, its Chief Financial Officer (the "Defendants"). The
lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Fenix Parts shares
from May 14, 2015 through October 12, 2016. The complaint asserts
that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC
Rule 10b-5 and that Messrs. Robertson and Pettit violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Fenix Parts said that "the complaint asserts that we made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
we had an inadequate inventory valuation methodology; (2) had an
inadequate methodology to calculate goodwill impairment; (3) were
engaging and/or had engaged in conduct that would result in an SEC
investigation; and (4) as a result, our statements about our
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times." The plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of
unspecified damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and other further
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Fenix Parts, Inc. is in the business of automotive recycling and
was founded on January 2, 2014, to acquire and combine companies
in the automobile recycling and resale industry. Fenix Parts is
based on Westchester, Illinois.
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Meisels" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Nachman Meisels, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff
v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
05019 (E.D.N.Y., August 24, 2017).
Financial Recovery offers collection services to mid-size
companies across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maxim Maximov, Esq.
Maxim Maximov, LLP
1701 Avenue P
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Tel: (718) 395-3459
Fax: (718) 408-9570
Email: m@maximovlaw.com
FINISAR CORP: Oklahoma Pension Seeks to Certify Securities Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System
moves the Court for an order certifying the action captioned In re
FINISAR CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 5:11-cv-01252-
EJD (N.D. Cal.), as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Lead Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of all persons
and entities, who purchased or acquired the publicly traded common
stock of Finisar Corporation during the period from December 2,
2010, through March 8, 2011, inclusive, and who were damaged
thereby.
Excluded from the Class are (i) Defendants Finisar, Eitan Gertel,
and Jerry S. Rawls; (ii) the officers and directors of the Company
at all relevant times, (iii) members of Defendants' immediate
families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or
assigns; and (iv) any entity in which Defendants have or had a
controlling interest.
The Lead Plaintiff also seeks its appointment as Class
Representative and the appointment of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky,
LLP, as Class Counsel.
The Court will commence a hearing on November 30, 2017, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VhNAZi93
The Lead Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian D. Berg, Esq.
Takeo A. Kellar, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 764-2580
Facsimile: (858) 764-2582
E-mail: iberg@aftlaw.com
tkellar@aftlaw.com
- and -
Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, NY 10119
Telephone: (212) 279-5050
Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
E-mail: mtwersky@aftlaw.com
FIRST HORIZON: Facing "Garfield" Class Suit over Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on August
16, 2017, that a complaint has been filed against the company in
the Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, in connection with a merger
transaction.
First Horizon National Corporation and Capital Bank Financial
Corp. entered into an agreement and plan of merger, dated May 3,
2017, between First Horizon, Capital Bank Financial and Firestone
Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of First Horizon, pursuant to which and on the terms
and subject to the conditions set forth therein, Capital Bank
Financial will merge with and into First Horizon, with First
Horizon as the surviving corporation in the merger.
On July 14, 2017, a complaint captioned Garfield v. First Horizon
National Corporation, et al., No. CH-17-1022, was filed on behalf
of a putative class of First Horizon shareholders against First
Horizon, its directors, and Capital Bank Financial in the Court of
Chancery of Shelby County, Tennessee (30th Judicial District), in
connection with the merger. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the First Horizon director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the merger, that Capital Bank
Financial aided and abetted such breaches, and that First Horizon,
its directors and Capital Bank Financial failed to disclose
material information in connection with the merger.
In particular, the complaint alleges that because the compensation
of First Horizon's CEO might increase as a result of an increase
in size of First Horizon due to the merger and because members of
First Horizon's board of directors could be expected to benefit
from such increase (for example, in light of the alleged increased
prestige and compensation of serving as a director of a larger
financial institution), the individual defendants were motivated
to enter into the merger agreement. The complaint seeks, among
other things, an order enjoining the merger, as well as other
equitable relief and/or money damages, interest, costs, fees
(including attorneys' fees) and expenses.
First Horizon said that "the outcome of the pending case and any
additional future litigation is uncertain. If the case is not
resolved, the lawsuit(s) could prevent or delay completion of the
merger and result in substantial costs to First Horizon and
Capital Bank Financial, including any costs associated with the
indemnification of directors and officers. One of the conditions
to the closing of the merger is that no order, injunction or
decree issued by any court or agency of competent jurisdiction or
other legal restraint or prohibition preventing the consummation
of the merger or the bank merger shall be in effect. Therefore, if
plaintiffs are successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting
the completion of the merger or the bank merger on the agreed-upon
terms, then such injunction may prevent the merger from being
completed, or from being completed within the expected timeframe.
The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains
unresolved at the time the merger is completed may adversely
affect First Horizon's business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows."
First Horizon is a bank holding company based in Memphis,
Tennessee, United States and was founded way back 1864.
FIRST HORIZON: Named as Defendant in "Parshall" Suit over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on August
16, 2017, that a complaint has been filed against the company in
the Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, in connection with a merger
transaction.
First Horizon National Corporation and Capital Bank Financial
Corp. entered into an agreement and plan of merger, dated May 3,
2017, between First Horizon, Capital Bank Financial and Firestone
Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of First Horizon, pursuant to which and on the terms
and subject to the conditions set forth therein, Capital Bank
Financial will merge with and into First Horizon, with First
Horizon as the surviving corporation in the merger.
Capital Bank Financial and the individual members of the Capital
Bank Financial board of directors have been named as defendants in
three substantially similar putative derivative and class action
lawsuits filed by alleged shareholders of Capital Bank Financial.
These actions are captioned: (1) Bushansky v. Capital Bank
Financial Corp., et al., No. 3:17-cv-00422 (W.D. North Carolina
filed July 17, 2017); (2) Parshall v. Capital Bank Financial
Corp., et al., No. 3:17-cv-00428 (W.D. North Carolina filed July
19, 2017); and (3) Catherine McNamara v. Capital Bank Financial
Corp., et al., No. 3:17-cv-00439 (W.D. North Carolina filed July
25, 2017).
The Parshall complaint also names First Horizon and Merger Sub as
defendants. The three complaints allege that the registration
statement on Form S-4 filed on June 29, 2017 omits and/or
misrepresents material information which renders it false and
misleading. Specifically, the complaints allege that the
registration statement omits (i) material information regarding
the financial projections of Capital Bank Financial, First
Horizon, and the pro forma combined company; (ii) material
information regarding the engagement of UBS Securities LLC; (iii)
Sandler O'Neill's and UBS Securities LLC's respective holdings in
Capital Bank Financial, First Horizon and Merger Sub; and (iv)
certain provisions of non-disclosure agreements between Capital
Bank Financial and prospective bidders, which included First
Horizon. The complaints further allege that Sander O'Neill's
valuation analyses and fairness opinion were misleading. The
complaints seek, among other things, an order enjoining the
merger, as well as other equitable relief and/or money damages,
interest, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) and expenses.
First Horizon said that "the outcome of the pending case and any
additional future litigation is uncertain. If the case is not
resolved, the lawsuit(s) could prevent or delay completion of the
merger and result in substantial costs to First Horizon and
Capital Bank Financial, including any costs associated with the
indemnification of directors and officers. One of the conditions
to the closing of the merger is that no order, injunction or
decree issued by any court or agency of competent jurisdiction or
other legal restraint or prohibition preventing the consummation
of the merger or the bank merger shall be in effect. Therefore, if
plaintiffs are successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting
the completion of the merger or the bank merger on the agreed-upon
terms, then such injunction may prevent the merger from being
completed, or from being completed within the expected timeframe.
The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains
unresolved at the time the merger is completed may adversely
affect First Horizon's business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows."
First Horizon is a bank holding company based in Memphis,
Tennessee, United States and was founded way back 1864.
FLUOR CORP: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Butler, Lakeisha Darwish, Darron Eigner, Jr., Bernard A.
Johnson, and Jimi Che Sutton v. Fluor Corporation and Fluor
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 0:17-cv-02201-JMC (D.S.C., August 18,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to give the
Plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated, at least 60 days
prior notice of termination of their employment as required by
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act").
The Defendants own and operate an engineering and construction
firm located at 6700 Las Colinas Boulevard Irving, Texas 75039.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy L. Gaffney, Esq.
GAFFNEY LEWIS & EDWARDS, LLC
3700 Forest Drive, Suite 400
Columbia, SC 29204
Telephone: (803) 790-8838
Facsimile: (803) 790-8841
E-mail: agaffney@glelawfirm.com
- and -
David B. Yarborough Jr., Esq.
William E. Applegate IV, Esq.
Christopher J. Bryant, Esq.
291 East Bay Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 972-0150
Facsimile: (843) 277-6691
E-mail: david@yarboroughapplegate.com
william@yarboroughapplegate.com
chris@yarboroughapplegate.com
- and -
Charles A. Ercole, Esq.
Lee D. Moylan, Esq.
KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG, LLP
1835 Market Street, 14th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 569-2700
Facsimile: (215) 568-6603
E-mail: cercole@klehr.com
lmoylan@klehr.com
FRED MEYER: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fred Meyer Jewelers,
Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fred
Meyer Jewelers, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-06409-VB (S.D.
N.Y., August 23, 2017).
Fred Meyer Jewelers is a national chain of jewelers. It is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Fred Meyer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
Bronson Lipsky LLP
630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Trust Negotiates Deal for Ignition Flaw Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Vlasic and Neal E. Boudetteaug, writing for New York Times,
report that for eight years, the shell of prebankruptcy General
Motors has lingered on in the form of "old G.M." -- first as a
corporate entity and now as an obscure trust designed to settle
debts and claims left over from the company's huge financial
collapse.
With the help of a $50 billion government bailout in 2009, a
reborn G.M. emerged from the bankruptcy process as a healthy
company. Meanwhile, old G.M. -- officially called Motors
Liquidation Company -- had the task of selling off factories and
other leftover assets to compensate legions of creditors.
But just as the business of old G.M. seemed to be winding down,
the company has suddenly been thrust into the legal battle over
responsibility for the worst safety scandal in the automaker's
history.
Last week, the trust negotiated a deal for victims of the
automaker's defective ignition switches, which have caused 124
deaths and prompted the recall of millions of small cars in 2014.
The switches had a tendency to turn off by themselves, leaving the
car without power and disabling its airbags.
The agreement with the plaintiffs' lawyers called for the trust to
accept liability for hundreds of outstanding legal claims and, in
the process, force the up-and-running G.M. to fund the cost of
potential settlements by turning over $1 billion of its stock.
And that was when old G.M. ran afoul of new G.M. -- still the
nation's largest automaker.
On August 17, in an unusual turn of events, G.M. blocked the deal
reached by the trust and the accident victims' lawyers. Instead,
it made its own deal with the trust.
At an hourlong hearing in United States Bankruptcy Court in New
York, both versions of G.M. said they would work together on
bankruptcy-related issues.
The plaintiffs' lawyers did not take kindly to the development.
One lawyer, Robert C. Hilliard, said old G.M. "has been shut down
by new G.M." from compensating victims -- "all at the 11th hour
and with all documents finalized and agreed to by all parties."
That agreement called for the trust to pay $15 million to settle
class-action cases covering cars sold before the G.M. bankruptcy
with defective switches and to accept $10 billion in claims on its
balance sheet.
The $10 billion would push the total claims against old G.M. since
2009 to more than $35 billion -- a threshold that would require
the current G.M., under the terms of the bankruptcy, to hand over
$1 billion in stock to keep the trust financially solvent.
G.M. called that deal "an unfair, unjust and improper scheme" to
circumvent a series of so-called bellwether trials intended to set
damages for remaining lawsuits over accidents involving owners of
defective vehicles. Several of the trials have resulted in legal
victories for the company.
"This is a ridiculous attempt to have G.M. fund the trust's
outrageously overstated settlement of meritless claims," the
company said in a statement.
Before the settlement could be filed with the court, General
Motors persuaded the trust to change course. The trust did,
agreeing to not pursue a settlement with victims' lawyers as long
as a crucial legal issue was unresolved: so-called late claims
against old G.M.
At August 17's hearing, tempers ran high, and Judge Martin Glenn
scolded lawyers on all sides.
One of the plaintiffs' lawyers, Edward Weisfelner, suggested that
the collapse of the liability agreement might have been the result
of "very serious threats issued either by new G.M. or new G.M.'s
professionals" to old G.M.
Keith R. Martorana, representing old G.M., said General Motors had
simply offered greater financial security for the trust, assuaging
concerns that further litigation costs would drain its resources.
Judge Glenn ordered the parties to exchange information about the
collapse of the liability deal and to return to him in early
September.
The court hearing was a rare public glimpse into the workings of
old G.M.
Immediately after the automaker's bankruptcy, old G.M. was a
bustling operation, responsible for selling more than 200
properties and other assets that were separated from the new
company. Those included a factory in Pontiac, Mich., that for a
time became a movie studio; another plant in Wilmington, Del.; and
dozens of properties scattered around the Midwest.
For a time, old G.M. occupied offices in the Renaissance Center in
Detroit, where General Motors has its headquarters. As its
operations wound down, old G.M. moved out, and its remaining
affairs are managed by a Delaware company, Wilmington Trust.
Under the original Chapter 11 proceedings, the timetable for
filing claims against old G.M. expired in 2011. But because the
fatal defect in older prebankruptcy cars was not discovered until
2014, plaintiffs' lawyers have pushed to reopen the filing window.
Until that issue is resolved, the trust agreed to hold off on
settlement discussions.
Plaintiffs' attorneys say 400 to 500 people have prebankruptcy
claims involving injuries or death. G.M. has suggested that many
or perhaps most of those claims may not be valid, since it can be
difficult to prove conclusively in court that an accident was
caused by the ignition switch.
Some cases have been dismissed at trial because crashes were found
have been related to other causes, such as impaired driving, or
had other contributing factors.
The faulty ignition switch at the center of the case was used in
the Chevrolet Cobalt and Saturn Ion compact cars that G.M. began
making in 2002 and 2003.
G.M. engineers knew of the problems for years before the company
issued limited recalls of affected models. The matter was obscured
as G.M. went through bankruptcy in 2009.
In 2014, links between the switch and some fatal crashes became
clear, and G.M. recalled 2.6 million vehicles. Eventually, G.M.
paid $900 million to settle a federal criminal investigation and
set aside $594.5 million for a fund to compensate victims of
switch-related crashes. [GN]
GOLD COAST: "King" Suit in Fla. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stanford King, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Gold Coast USA, Inc., Gerald Hierbert, and Ray Warren, Case No.
6:17-cv-01511-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla., August 18, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants are in the business of providing air conditioning
and refrigeration maintenance and repair services to residential
and commercial customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith M. Stern, Esq.
Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A
One Flagler
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 901-1379
Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
E-mail: employlaw@workingforyou.com
hsolis@workingforyou.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge in Class Suit Has Held One Hearing in a Year
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dugan, writing for New York Post, reports that justice may
be slow, but this is ridiculous.
The Manhattan federal judge who is overseeing a class-action
lawsuit against 26 financial firms for allegedly rigging US
Treasury auctions last held a hearing for the case on Aug. 22,
2016, court records show.
At that time, Judge Paul Gardephe questioned whether the
plaintiffs, a group of pension funds and other investors, had made
a "plausible case of collusive or manipulative conduct."
After the August 2016 hearing, the judge ordered the lawyers for
the plaintiffs to submit papers making their case to be appointed
the lead firm for the class -- a potentially lucrative
designation.
But no decision has been made in the matter after 361 days.
The delay appears to be driving some lawyers up a wall. Eight
lawyers have withdrawn, according to public filings.
"People are leaving, people are dying, people are getting born,"
one frustrated lawyer quipped. "It's unprecedented."
Representatives for Gardephe, and for Manhattan federal court,
declined to comment. [GN]
GOOGLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms $8.5M Privacy Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the Ninth Circuit agreed on August 22, that Google can settle
privacy claims by giving $8.5 million to six nonprofit privacy
organizations instead of class members, despite ties between the
organizations, Google and class counsel.
The three-judge appeals panel found that U.S. District Judge
Edward Davila did not abuse his discretion by approving the cy
pres settlement, almost half of which went to the alma maters of
class counsel, and another chunk to organizations to which Google
regularly donates or which received Google settlement funds in the
past.
"A prior relationship or connection between the two, without more,
is not an absolute disqualifier," U.S. Circuit Judge M. Margaret
McKeown wrote for the panel.
Cy pres, legal French for "as near as," is an equitable doctrine
by which a court reforms a contribution as closely as possible to
the donor's intention.
McKeown said multiple factors, including the nature of the
relationship and the circumstances of the selection process also
"play into the analysis." She called the two objectors' allegation
by two objectors that Davila abused his discretion "unfair and
untrue."
But Senior U.S. Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace dissented in
part, suggesting in a scathing 5-page opinion that the
circumstances surrounding the choice of recipients was "unseemly."
Lead plaintiff Paloma Gaos accused Google in 2010 of violating its
own privacy policy by sharing users' search terms with third-party
websites without telling users or asking their permission, in
violation of the Stored Communications Act and California law.
The search terms were included in referrer headers, which identify
the page containing the link that the user clicked on to request
the webpage. Some of the information can identify users, the
plaintiffs said.
Under a 2015 settlement, Google agreed to establish an $8.5
million settlement fund, but none of the money went to class
members. Instead, $5.3 million went to six cy pres recipients
proposed by the settling parties to fund internet privacy
initiatives. The remaining $3.2 million went to covering
attorneys' fees, costs, and $15,000 in incentive awards for three
named plaintiffs.
The recipients are Carnegie-Mellon University; the World Privacy
Forum; Chicago-Kent College of Law Center for Information,
Society, and Policy; the Stanford Law School Center for Internet
and Society; the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard
and the AARP Foundation.
The Center for Class Action Fairness at the Competitive Enterprise
Institute objected to the settlement on behalf of two class
members, arguing that "the class members will not see one penny."
On appeal, the objectors argued that a cy pres settlement was
inappropriate and that the $8.5 million should have been used to
fund a claims process or lottery distribution to class members.
They took particular issue with the relationships some of the
recipients have with class counsel and Google: Class attorney
Michael Aschenbrener attended Chicago-Kent, and class attorney
Kassra Nassiri attended Stanford and Harvard. Google donates to
the Berkman Center, the Stanford Center, AARP, and Chicago-Kent.
Though Davila expressed discomfort with the proposed settlement,
he approved it. The judge reasoned that the recipients had a
substantial connection to the interests of the class members, and
that there was no evidence that the parties' preexisting
relationships factored into the selection.
The Ninth Circuit agreed on August 22, calling the objectors'
argument "a barebones allegation that class counsel graduated from
schools that house the internet research centers that will receive
funds."
McKeown noted that class counsel swore they had no affiliation
with the research centers, and that the objectors never disputed
it.
"The claim that counsel's receipt of a degree from one of these
schools taints the settlement can't be entertained with a straight
face," McKeown wrote in the 27-page ruling.
The panel came to a similar conclusion regarding Google, finding
that its role in vetting the recipients, its donations to them,
and the fact that some received Google settlement funds in the
past "does not cast doubt on the settlement."
"Given that, over time, major players such as Google may be
involved in more than one cy pres settlement, it is not an abuse
of discretion for a court to bless a strong nexus between the cy
pres recipient and the interests of the class over a desire to
diversify the pick via novel beneficiaries that are less relevant
or less qualified," McKeown wrote.
Class attorney Nassiri, with Nassiri & Jung in San Francisco, said
on August 22, he was pleased with the ruling.
"On this record it's pretty clear that the recipients were chosen
on the merits, and not because of any alumni affiliation," he said
in an interview. "The thought leaders around these issues are law
schools, and Judge Davila called them the 'usual suspects,' and
they're the usual suspects for good reason. They're the center of
thinking here in this field."
In his partial dissent, however, Wallace faulted class counsel and
Davila for not doing enough to prove that the settlement was
appropriate. He said he was "especially dubious" of the decision
to include the Center for Information, Society and Policy at
Chicago-Kent among the recipients because it was inaugurated only
a year before the parties agreed to the settlement.
Wallace said he would vacate Davila's approval of the settlement
and remand with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing,
examine class counsel under oath, and determine whether their
prior affiliation with the recipients played a role in their
selection.
"The combination of a cy pres-only award, a pre-certification
settlement, and the fact that almost half the cy pres fund is
going to class counsel's alma maters, is sufficient to shift the
burden to the proponents of the settlement to show, on a sworn
record, that nothing in the acknowledged relationship was a factor
in the ultimate choice," Wallace wrote.
"Here, the only sworn-to items in the record on this issue are
boilerplate, one-line declarations from class counsel stating 'I
have no affiliation' with the subject institutions," he continued.
"While the majority asserts that the district court conducted a
'careful review,' these terse declarations are the only shred of
sworn-to evidence in the record. There was essentially nothing for
the district court to review -- carefully or not. Although there
was some discussion between counsel and the district court during
the hearings on the settlement, this was nothing more than unsworn
lawyer talk during an oral argument."
Ted Frank, one of the objectors and an attorney with the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, said Wallace's dissent didn't go
far enough. He said the majority opinion created a circuit split
with the Third, Seventh, Eighth, and possibly Fifth Circuits, and
he plans to file a petition for a rehearing before a three-judge
panel or a full panel of the court.
"These aren't close questions, and just turning it into letting
lawyers say things under oath, it doesn't change the perverse
incentives, and you need to void those perverse incentives
entirely and you need a bright-line rule," Frank said in an
interview.
"We're going to see tens of millions of dollars diverted from
class members to lawyers' favorite charities."
Wallace concurred with the majority that a cy pres-only settlement
was appropriate and that Davila did not abuse his discretion in
calculating attorneys' fees.
Davila had ruled that a cy pres-only settlement was appropriate
because the settlement fund was non-distributable. McKeown noted
in August 22 decision that class members would have received 4
cents each in a payout.
Ninth Circuit Judge Jay Bybee joined McKeown and Wallace on the
panel.
Google was represented by Donald Falk with Mayer Brown in Palo
Alto. He directed a request for comment to a Google spokesperson,
who said the company was pleased with the decision.
HELIX ENERGY: Faces "Hewitt" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Hewitt, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-
02545 (S.D. Tex., August 18, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. owns and operates an oil and
gas services company located at 3505 W Sam Houston Pkwy N, Suite
400, Houston, Texas 77043. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Sullivan, Esq.
Mark J. Oberti, Esq.
OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP
712 Main Street, Suite 900
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 401-3557
Facsimile: (713) 401-3547
E-mail: ed@osattorneys.com
mark@osattorneys.com
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: "Fergus" Securities Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission on August 16, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, that the company is awaiting
initiatory papers in the "Fergus" class action lawsuit.
Two purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely,
Fergus v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03335, filed
June 9, 2016; and Becker v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-
cv-03374, filed June 10, 2016. These cases arise from the same
alleged facts and circumstances, and seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between April
20, 2016 and June 2, 2016 (with respect to the Fergus matter) and
between April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (with respect to the
Becker matter). These cases concern the Company's statements in
press releases, investor conference calls, and SEC filings
beginning in April 2016 that the Company would present updated
information regarding its IMMU-132 breast cancer drug at the 2016
American Society of Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") conference in
Chicago, Illinois.
The complaints allege that these statements were false and
misleading in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had
cancelled the presentation because it contained previously
reported information. Immunomedics said that "the complaints
further allege that these statements resulted in artificially
inflated prices for our common stock, and that the Company and
certain of its officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934."
An order of voluntarily dismissal without prejudice was entered on
November 10, 2016 in the Becker matter. An order granting motion
to consolidate cases, appoint lead plaintiff, and approve lead and
liaison counsel was entered on February 7, 2017 in the Fergus
matter. As of the date of the Form 10-K filing, service of the
initiating papers in the Fergus matter has not been made on the
Company.
Immunomedics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
developing monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer, autoimmune disorders and other serious
diseases. Immunomedics, Inc. is based on Morris Plains, New
Jersey.
INFOSYS: 3 Law Firms Initiate Investigation Over Securities Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Three US law firms Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, Pomerantz Law
Firm, and Rosen Law Firm, have initiated investigation against
Infosys amid concerns over whether the company's directors are
engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.
Rosen Law Firm is also preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Infosys investors, the report said.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman said that it was investigating
potential claims on behalf of purchasers of Infosys. The
investigation concerns whether Infosys and certain of its officers
and/or directors have complied with federal securities laws, Times
Now reported.
Public shareholders hold 86.76 per cent stake in the IT major.
Vanguar Vanguard, Oppenheimer, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and
the government of Singapore are some of the key foreign portfolio
investors in the company.
The news has come a day after Infosys shares tumbled 9.6 per cent
on August 18 after CEO and MD Vishal Sikka resigned following a
'misguided' campaign -- as the company's board called it -- by
none other than the company's co-founder NR Narayana Murthy.
The board of second largest IT firm Infosys is scheduled to
consider a share buyback proposal later on August 19. [GN]
INFOTREE SERVICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Moody" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNY MOODY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. INFOTREE SERVICE INC., a Michigan
corporation; SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC673011 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Aug. 18, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime and minimum wages, premium wages for missed meal and rest
periods, penalties, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under
California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, for at least 4 years prior to the
filing of this action and through to the present, Defendants have
had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including
overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the
State of California in violation of California state wage and hour
laws as a result of, including but not limited to, unevenly
rounding time worked.
Infotree is a dynamic and entrepreneurial company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Nourmand, Esq.
James A. De Sario, Esq.
THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
8822 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone (310) 553 3600
Facsimile (310) 553 3603
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hit with $417MM Verdict in Talcum Powder Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Balsamo and Amanda Lee Myers, writing for The Associated
Press, report that a Los Angeles jury on Aug. 21 ordered Johnson &
Johnson to pay a record $417 million to a hospitalized woman who
claimed in a lawsuit that the talc in the company's iconic baby
powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine
hygiene.
The verdict in the lawsuit brought by the California woman,
Eva Echeverria, marks the largest sum awarded in a series of
talcum powder lawsuit verdicts against Johnson & Johnson in courts
around the U.S.
Ms. Echeverria alleged Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn
consumers about talcum powder's potential cancer risks. She used
the company's baby powder on a daily basis beginning in the 1950s
until 2016 and was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007,
according to court papers.
Ms. Echeverria developed ovarian cancer as a "proximate result of
the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder,"
she said in her lawsuit.
Ms. Echeverria's attorney, Mark Robinson, said his client is
undergoing cancer treatment while hospitalized and told him she
hoped the verdict would lead Johnson & Johnson to put additional
warnings on its products.
"Mrs. Echeverria is dying from this ovarian cancer and she said to
me all she wanted to do was to help the other women throughout the
whole country who have ovarian cancer for using Johnson & Johnson
for 20 and 30 years," Mr. Robinson said.
"She really didn't want sympathy," he added. "She just wanted to
get a message out to help these other women."
Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in a statement
that the company will appeal the jury's decision. She says while
the company sympathizes with women suffering from ovarian cancer
that scientific evidence supports the safety of Johnson's baby
powder.
The verdict came after a St. Louis, Missouri jury in May awarded
$110.5 million to a Virginia woman who was diagnosed with ovarian
cancer in 2012.
She had blamed her illness on her use of the company's talcum
powder-containing products for more than 40 years.
Besides that case, three other trials in St. Louis had similar
outcomes last year -- with juries awarding damages of $72 million,
$70.1 million and $55 million, for a combined total of $307.6
million.
Another St. Louis jury in March rejected the claims of a Tennessee
woman with ovarian and uterine cancer who blamed talcum powder for
her cancers.
Two similar cases in New Jersey were thrown out by a judge who
said the plaintiffs' lawyers did not presented reliable evidence
linking talc to ovarian cancer.
More than 1,000 other people have filed similar lawsuits. Some
who won their lawsuits won much lower amounts, illustrating how
juries have wide latitude in awarding monetary damages.
Johnson & Johnson is preparing to defend itself and its baby
powder at upcoming trials in the U.S., Ms. Goodrich said.
LA PARK: Faces "Leisner" Suit over Water Submetering Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN LEISNER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LA PARK LA BREA A, LLC,
APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY D/B/A AIMCO, INC., and
CONSERVICE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. BC672847 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Aug. 18, 2017), seeks injunction requiring Defendants to
cease advertising and selling Leases as billing Utilities in a
method contrary to how they were actually billed and an award of
damages to the Class Members, together with costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees.
The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against
Defendants to stop Defendants' practice of wrongfully charging
tenants of their apartment complexes for water and wastewater (the
Utility) on a Ratio Utility Billing System (RUB) when Defendants
represent, advertise, and agreed to charge tenants under a
submetering scheme. Defendants further represented this on the
monthly billing statements consumers received while residing in
the apartments. In reality, Defendants charged consumers on a RUB
basis, thus resulting in consumers being charged a different
amount than agreed to and promised for the Utilities. The
Plaintiff and others similarly situated entered into the Leases
and paid their Utility bills based on Defendants' promises and
representations. Defendants misrepresented and falsely sold to
Plaintiff and others similarly situated that the Utilities would
be charged on a submetered basis as part of their residency under
the Leases, but in fact they were charged on a RUB basis. While
the utilities of gas and electric are specifically regulated by
the California Civil Code, the utility of water is not such that
it is a matter contracted to between landlord and tenant for which
the proper representation of the method for such billing is
integral to the protection of consumers' rights. Further, the
practice of billing for water usage using submetering is important
as a matter of California policy because it encourages
conservation, which is particularly important as California is
perpetually at risk of or actively in a drought state.
Park La Brea is a sprawling apartment community in the Miracle
Mile District of Los Angeles, California. With 4,255 units located
in eighteen 13-story towers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206 4741
Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
LYFT: Hit With Class Action Over Drivers' Payments
--------------------------------------------------
Dan Radel, writing for App, reports that a Long Branch woman has
filed a class-action lawsuit in federal district court claiming
that ride-sharing service Lyft pays drivers less than the agreed-
upon amount.
The driver, Keara Nieves of Long Branch, filed the lawsuit on
August 15. According to the complaint, she has been a Lyft driver
since 2016.
Lyft, which is headquartered in San Francisco, will have to
respond with an answer to the allegations, said Nieves' attorney
Stephan T. Mashel, Esq. -- smashel@mashellaw.com -- of Mashel Law
LLC, regarding the lawsuit's next step.
The complaint states that Lyft has engaged in a pattern of
misrepresenting the true fare of rides to Lyft drivers.
According to the complaint, Lyft agrees to pay drivers the fare it
charges riders, minus Lyft's service fee or commission, which is
typically 20 to 25 percent of the fare.
Nieves, however, alleges that Lyft is not delivering the "promised
amounts" to drivers.
"Instead it charges riders a higher fare than what it informs the
Lyft drivers," the complaint states.
Nieves is seeking class certification, which would allow other
Lyft drivers to join the lawsuit, and an award of money damages.
"She is entitled to what Lyft charges its riders, less Lyft's
commission and fees. But that's not what Lyft is doing," Mashel
said. "They're in breach of contract."
Lyft operates in at least 34 states, according to the court
document. A representative for Lyft said the company generally
does not comment on pending litigation. [GN]
M-I L.L.C.: "Smith" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. M-I, L.L.C. d/b/a MI SWACO, Defendant, Case
No. 5:17-cv-00788 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 18, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to workers under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, all of Defendant's Production
Technicians worked similar hours and were denied overtime as a
result of the same illegal pay practice. All of Defendant's
Production Technicians regularly worked in excess of 40 hours each
work week. For instance, Smith regularly worked in excess of 80
hours each week. Instead of being paid hourly, Production
Technicians were paid a base salary. No matter how many hours
these individuals worked in excess of 40 hours a week, they were
not paid overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352 1100
Facsimile: (713) 352 3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, Texas 77046
Telephone: (713) 877 8788
Facsimile: (713) 877 8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
MARTHA STEWART: Judge Tosses Shareholder Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Randall Chase, writing for ABC News, reports that a Delaware judge
has dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed by former stockholders
of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia over the company's 2015
acquisition by Sequential Brands.
The lawsuit said that Stewart leveraged her position as
controlling stockholder to secure greater consideration for
herself than was paid to other stockholders. They also accused
Sequential of aiding and abetting Stewart's alleged breach of her
fiduciary duties.
The judge said on August 18 that Stewart was entitled to the
deference given to corporate leaders under Delaware's "business
judgment" rule.
He also said the plaintiffs likely could not prove that Stewart
engaged in a conflicted transaction or that they suffered any
damages as a result. The judge said that the consideration
Sequential offered to Martha Stewart stockholders actually
increased after negotiations with her began. [GN]
MEDICREDIT INC: Seeks Final Approval of "Hartman" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned MELISSA HARTMAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEDICREDIT,
INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-01596-MPK (W.D. Pa.), file with the Court
their joint notice of motion and motion for final approval of
class settlement agreement and release.
The Parties move for an order certifying the case as a class
action, and granting final approval of the settlement, on behalf
of this class:
All Pennsylvania consumers who were sent collection letters
and/or notices from Defendant, during the period of
December 07, 2014 to present, attempting to collect a
consumer debt owed to or allegedly owed to UPP University of
Pittsburgh Physicians, which displayed the debtor's consumer
account number through the glassine window of the enclosing
envelope.
The Plaintiff filed the class action lawsuit, which alleged that
MCI violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by, inter
alia, sending consumers written collection communications
displayed through the consumer's account number through the
glassine window of the enclosing envelope.
A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OAI9Elf9
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Scott J. Dickenson, Esq.
SPENCER FANE, LLP
1 N. Brentwood Blvd, Suite 1000
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 863-7733
Facsimile: (314) 862-4656
E-mail: sdickenson@spencerfane.com
MOBILEHELP: Faces "Elzen" Suit in S. Dist. of Fla.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MobileHelp, LLC. The
case is styled as David Van Elzen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MobileHelp, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-
80971-DMM (S.D. Fla., August 23, 2017).
MobileHelp, LLC develops mobile medical alert technology that
detects medical emergencies of its users and sends out alerts for
emergency response.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq.
Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, P.A.
201 S Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
Miami, Fl 33131
Tel: (877) 333-9427
Fax: (888) 498-8946
Email: law@stefancoleman.com
MONOGRAM RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Berg" Suit Over Sale to Greystar
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MONOGRAM RESIDENTIAL TRUST, INC., E. ALAN
PATTON, MARK T. ALFIERI, DAVID D. FITCH, TAMMY K. JONES, JONATHAN
L. KEMPNER, W. BENJAMIN MORELAND, TIMOTHY J. PIRE, GS MONARCH
PARENT, LLC, GS MONARCH ACQUISITION, LLC, and GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS, Defendants, Case No: 1:17-cv-02231-JFM (D. Md., August
7, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction announced on July 4,
2017 pursuant to which Monogram Residential Trust, Inc. will be
acquired by affiliates of Greystar Real Estate Partners, GS
Monarch Parent, LLC and GS Monarch Acquisition, LLC. Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Monogram will
receive $12.00 per share in cash.
The case alleges that defendants filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement that omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading.
First, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding
Monogram's financial projections and the analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC.
Second, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose whether the non-
disclosure agreement executed by Monogram and "Party A" contained
a provision that prevented Party A from submitting superior offers
to acquire the Company, says the complaint.
Monogram is a self-managed real estate investment trust that
invests in, develops, and operates high quality multifamily
communities offering location and lifestyle amenities.[BN]
The Plaintiffs is represented by:
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 524-4290
Email: denright@zlk.com
MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Agreement in Principle Reached with New GM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust said in its Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on August
18, 2017, that the Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust and
General Motors LLC had reached an agreement in principle.
The GUC Trust is involved in litigation concerning purported
economic losses, personal injuries and/or death suffered by
certain lessees and owners of vehicles (such persons, "Potential
Plaintiffs") manufactured by General Motors Corporation prior to
its sale of substantially all of its assets to NGMCO, Inc., n/k/a
General Motors LLC ("New GM"). Certain of the Potential Plaintiffs
have filed lawsuits against New GM, filed motions seeking
authority from the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "Bankruptcy Court") to file claims against the GUC
Trust (the "Late Claims Motions"), or are members of a putative
class covered by those actions.
The GUC Trust had been engaged in discussions with certain of the
Potential Plaintiffs regarding a potential settlement of the Late
Claims Motions and various related issues (the "Potential
Plaintiff Settlement"), and that such discussions had meaningfully
progressed. At no point did the GUC Trust execute an agreement
that would comprise the Potential Plaintiff Settlement, and the
GUC Trust believes that the terms, to the extent negotiated, in
respect of any Potential Plaintiff Settlement were at no point
binding on the parties. On August 16, 2017, counsel to certain of
the Potential Plaintiffs delivered a letter to the Bankruptcy
Court asserting that the Potential Plaintiff Settlement was
binding on the GUC Trust. The GUC Trust believes that such claims
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against such
assertions.
On August 16, 2017, the GUC Trust and New GM filed a letter (the
"August 16 Letter") with the Bankruptcy Court announcing (i) that
the GUC Trust was no longer pursuing the Potential Plaintiff
Settlement, and (ii) that the GUC Trust and New GM had reached an
agreement in principle (the "New GM Agreement") with respect to
the following terms:
-- New GM will reimburse the reasonable legal and expert fees
of the GUC Trust incurred by it in connection with defending
against the Late Claims Motions, opposing the proofs of claim that
are the subject of the Late Claims Motions, any related appeals or
litigation (including in the pending MDL proceeding before Judge
Furman (the "MDL Proceeding"), and the preparation, negotiation
and prosecution of the New GM Agreement.
-- During the term of the New GM Agreement, the GUC Trust
will refrain from seeking an order estimating the claims of the
Potential Plaintiffs or settling the Late Claims Motions (or any
underlying claims of the Potential Plaintiffs) until after the
following have occurred: (a) a final and non-appealable order is
entered adjudicating the Late Claim Motions; and (b) a final and
non-appealable order is entered resolving all class certification
issues involving claims relating to the consolidated class action
complaint filed by the economic loss plaintiffs in the MDL
Proceeding (the "Settlement Restriction").
-- In the event that the GUC Trust is, following the
resolution of the Term Loan Avoidance Action (as defined in the
GUC Trust Agreement), in a position to make a distribution of
Excess GUC Trust Distributable Assets (as defined in the GUC Trust
Agreement) but for the continuing litigation related to the Late
Claims Motions, then the GUC Trust and New GM will agree to engage
in good faith discussions about whether New GM is willing to pay
an appropriate rate of return and, if so, the amount of that rate
of return for such delay in distributions as a result of such
litigation.
-- In the event that an appropriate rate of return cannot
promptly be agreed between the GUC Trust and New GM, the GUC Trust
may terminate the New GM Agreement on thirty days written notice
to New GM and the Settlement Restriction will be lifted.
MUSEUM OF SEX: Faces Class Action Over Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------
Dean Balsamini, writing for New York Post, reports that the Museum
of Sex has turned off a 66-year-old blind Brooklyn woman.
The kinky cultural's website discriminates against visually-
impaired people, a federal class-action lawsuit charges.
Marion Kiler, the lead plaintiff, claims she's made "numerous
attempts" to buy products from the museum's online store, which
hawks everything from performance tickets to nipple clamps ($18)
and penis pasta ($10.50).
Kiler was poised to lay out $36.50 for a bottle of Province
Apothecary Lover's Oil, but was unable to "independently navigate,
use and complete a transaction" due to the "numerous access
barriers" on the website, the suit says.
Blind people can access websites by using keyboards in conjunction
with screen-reading software, which vocalizes information it sees
on a computer screen. The suit charges the website, among other
things, lacks navigation links and transactions can't be performed
without a mouse.
The suit seeks unspecified damages. [GN]
MY SIZE: Response to Shareholder Suit Due September 19
------------------------------------------------------
My Size Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on August 18, 2017, that
it will respond to a class action complaint by Lightcom (Israel)
Ltd. by the September 19 response deadline.
On May 3, 2017, Lightcom (Israel) Ltd., an Israeli company,
alleging that it is a shareholder of the Company, filed a motion
with the Tel Aviv District Court (Financial Division) to approve
an action against the Company as a shareholders' class action. The
subject matter of the action appears to be a report filed by the
Company on April 19, 2017. The Court ordered the Company to
respond to the motion by September 19, 2017.
The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the Company's report of
April 19th, 2017 regarding its engagement with the Israeli Post
was false and misleading, and that as a result thereof financial
damages have been incurred by two purported classes of
shareholders: (i) any shareholder who sold Company's shares as of
April 20th, 2017 and until April 27th, 2017, with respect to
damage directly caused by such sale and (ii) any shareholder which
held shares on April 20th, 2017 and subsequent to April 27th, 2017
with respect to damage caused by permanent adverse effect to the
shares' value.
The alleged financial damage caused to members of both classes is
estimated at NIS 18.8 million. The Company reviewed the motion
with its legal counsel and retained an expert to review and
analyze the allegations and data upon which the Motion is based.
The company said that "At this preliminary stage, the Company
cannot evaluate the chances of the Motion. However, based on an
initial opinion the Company received from its expert, the Company
believes that there is no direct causal connection between the
Company's report which is the subject matter of the motion and the
alleged damages caused to either class of purported plaintiffs and
that in any case there appears to be no correlation between the
alleged scope of damages and the merits of the alleged case. The
Company will respond to the motion in the time frame ordered by
the Court."
My Size Inc. is a dual listed publicly traded company whose common
stock are publicly trading on the TASE since September 2005 (under
the name Topspin Medical Inc) and on the NASDAQ Capital Market
("NASDAQ") since July 25, 2016. Since February 2014, the Company
also operates via a wholly-owned subsidiary, My Size (Israel) 2014
Ltd., a company registered in Israel. My Size Inc. had its office
in Airport City, Israel.
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Laford" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as Samantha Laford and Lauren Gibbons,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-04964 (E.D. N.Y., August 23, 2017).
Nationwide Credit, a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
NEW YORK: Public Service Commission Faces Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York State
Public Service Commission. The case is styled as Jane Doe, a
fictitious name, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. John B. Rhodes, Gregg C. Sayre, Diane X.
Burman, James S. Alesi, and New York State Public Service
Commission, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00936-DNH-TWD (N.D. N.Y.,
August 23, 2017).
The New York Public Service Commission is the public utilities
commission of the New York state government that regulates and
oversees the electric, gas, water, and telecommunication
industries in New York as part of the Department of Public
Service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas F. Gleason, Esq.
Gleason Dunn Walsh & O'Shea
40 Beaver Street
Albany, NY 12207
Tel: (518) 432-7511
Fax: (518) 432-5221
Email: tgleason@gdwo.net
NG & LIN: "Angel" Suit Seeks Minimum and OT Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMUNDO VAZQUEZ ANGEL and ABRAHAM COMUNIDAD, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NG &
LIN CO, INC (d/b/a SZECHUAN KITCHEN), SAMMY LIN and CHUNG NG, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06360 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2017),
seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs have been ostensibly
employed by Defendants as delivery workers and a food preparer.
However, when employed as delivery workers, Plaintiffs have been
required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing
non-tipped duties including but not limited to, various restaurant
duties such as cutting vegetables, meat, food preparation,
cleaning the kitchen and the refrigerator ("non-tipped duties").
At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Plaintiffs have
worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage or overtime compensation for the hours
that they have worked each week. Rather, Defendants have failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, and have
failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium. Further, Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they have
worked over 10 hours per day.
Defendants own, operate, or control a Chinese restaurant located
at 1518 First Avenue No. 1, New York, NY 10075 under the name
"Szechuan Kitchen".[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317 1200
Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
NORDSTROM INC: Faces Class Action Over Rolex Watches
----------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal News Line, reports that a
Baltimore consumer alleges a vintage watch she purchased was
misrepresented.
Brunilda Stephens filed a complaint on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated on Aug. 8 in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against Nordstrom Inc. and
HauteLook Inc. alleging common law fraud and other counts.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she
purchased a vintage Rolex watch from the defendants in 2015 on the
representations that it was an authentic watch, was in excellent
condition, contained all Rolex parts and was being shipped by the
brand and had been appraised.
The plaintiff holds Nordstrom Inc. and HauteLook Inc. responsible
because the watches are allegedly shipped from jewelers, contain
non-Rolex parts and are worth substantially less than the price
paid.
The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks restitution and
disgorgement, actual damages, exemplary and punitive damages, all
legal fees, interest and any other relief as the court deems just.
She is represented by Roland C. Colton, Esq. -- rcc7@msn.com -- of
Colton Law Group in Laguna Niguel, California and Alexander
Escandari, Esq. -- info@latls.com -- of L.A. Trial Lawyers Inc. in
Beverly Hills, California.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:17-cv-05872-FMO-SS [GN]
NORTH CAROLINA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in King Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Louise W. Flanagan denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the lawsuit entitled TIMOTHY ROYAL KING,
MICHAEL BLAKNEY, DERICK WHITE, DAYVON D. PERSON, LARRY FULLER,
LAVATAE EVANS, TIMOTHY BOYD, CHRIS PEARSALL, JIMMY TINSLEY, RONALD
BLAIR WINSTEAD, GREGORY PORTER, CORTNEY LEACH, MILTON L. LAWRENCE,
JOHN McNEILL, XAVIER KINNEY, IRVIN VASQUEZ, and DONALD USEVICH v.
FRANK L. PERRY, W. DAVID GUICE, CYNTHIA THORNTON, MELANIE SHELTON,
GEORGE T. SOLOMON, BETTY BROWN, and SUSAN ADDAMS, Case No. 5:17-
ct-03043-FL (E.D.N.C.).
Frank L. Perry is the Secretary of the North Carolina Department
of Public Safety.
The Plaintiffs, who are state inmates, filed the civil rights
action, pro se, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, on Feb. 13,
2017.
Judge Flanagan granted Plaintiff Jimmy Tinsley's letter motion.
In his motion, Mr. Tinsley states that he did not fully understand
what he was getting involved with when he joined this lawsuit, and
he now seeks to be removed.
Mr. Tinsley also notes that he wishes for the Court to stop
deducting the filing fee from his account. Hence, he is to be
terminated from the lawsuit. The Court directed the Department of
Public Safety to stop deducting the filing fee from Plaintiff
Tinsley's account.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bWM1Pdjd
NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Stern" Suit in E.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group Inc.
The case is styled as Rochel Stern, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Northland Group
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05018 (E.D. N.Y., August 24,
2017).
Northland Group provides accounts receivable management and
collection services to national credit grantors, debt buyers, and
student loan lenders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maxim Maximov, Esq.
Maxim Maximov, LLP
1701 Avenue P
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Tel: (718) 395-3459
Fax: (718) 408-9570
Email: m@maximovlaw.com
NUTIVA INC: Jones Seeks Certification of VCO Purchasers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled PRESTON JONES and SHIRIN
DELALAT, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated,
and the general public v. NUTIVA, INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-00711-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), ask the Court to certify:
a class of all persons in the United States who, on or after
January 8, 2012, purchased for household use, and not for
resale or distribution, Nutiva Extra Virgin Coconut Oil or
Nutiva Virgin Coconut Oil, whose label stated "100% Less
Cholesterol than Butter" (the "Class").
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives, and appoint their counsel as Class Counsel.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lhUVLOoS
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
Melanie Persinger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
Hillcrest Professional Building
3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 692-3840
Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
- and -
Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
4125 W. Pt. Loma Blvd. No. 206
San Diego, CA 92110
Phone: (619) 767-0356
Telephone: (619) 331-2943
E-mail: paul@pauljosephlaw.com
NY THRUWAY AUTHORITY: Madison Appeals Order in "Donohue" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Thomas J. Madison, Jr., et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled Donohue, et al. v. Madison, et
al., Case No. 13-cv-920, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York (Syracuse).
The appellate case is captioned as Donohue v. Madison, Case No.
17-2415, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.
The Defendants-Petitioners are Thomas J. Madison, Jr.,
Individually and in his official capacity as Executive Director of
the New York State Thruway Authority and the New York State Canal
Corporation; Carlos Millan, in his official capacity as Director
of Employee Relations and Employee Safety, New York State Thruway
Authority and New York State Canal Corporation; Howard P.
Milstein, Individually and in his official capacity as Chairman of
New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; Donna
J. Luh, Individually; E. Virgil Conway, in his official capacity
as Board Member of New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board
of Directors; Richard N. Simberg, Individually; Brandon R. Sall,
Individually; J. Donald Rice, Jr., Individually; Jose Holguin-
Veras, Individually; and New York State Thruway Authority.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents Danny Donohue, as President of the Civil
Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO;
Civil Service Employees Association, Local 1000 AFSCME, AFL-CIO;
John Dellio, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated; Michael Bouleris, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated; Maureen Alonzo, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated; and Marcos Diamantatos,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, are
represented by:
Aaron E. Kaplan, Esq.
Daren John Rylewicz, Esq.
Jennifer C. Zegarelli, Esq.
CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC.,
LOCAL 1000 AFSCME, AFL-CIO
143 Washington Avenue
P.O. Box 7125
Albany, NY 12210
Telephone: (518) 257-1443
Facsimile: (518) 449-1525
E-mail: aaron.kaplan@cseainc.org
daren.rylewicz@cseainc.org
jennifer.zegarelli@cseainc.org
The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by:
Beth A. Bourassa, Esq.
WHITEMAN OSTERMAN & HANNA LLP
1 Commerce Plaza
Albany, NY 12260
Telephone: (518) 487-7617
Facsimile: (518) 487-7777
E-mail: bbourassa@woh.com
NY THRUWAY AUTHORITY: Appeals Ruling in Employees Local 72 Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants New York State Thruway Authority, et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled New York State
Thruway Employees Local 72, et al. v. New York State Thruway
Authority, et al., Case No. 14-cv-1043, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York (Syracuse).
The appellate case is captioned as New York State Thruway
Employees Local 72, et al. v. New York State Thruway Authority, et
al., Case No. 17-2416, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.
The Defendants-Petitioners are New York State Thruway Authority;
Howard P. Milstein, individually and in his official capacity as
Chairman of the New York State Thruway Authority; Thomas J.
Madison, Jr., individually and in his official capacity as
Executive Director of the New York State Thruway Authority; Thomas
Ryan, in his official capacity; E. Virgil Conway, in his official
capacity as Board Member of the New York State Thruway Authority;
Brandon R. Sall, in his official capacity as Board Member of the
New York State Thruway Authority; John F. Barry, in his official
capacity as Director of Administrative Services of the New York
State Thruway Authority; John M. Bryan, in his official capacity
as Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the New York State
Thruway Authority; Donna J. Luh, in her official capacity as Vice-
Chair of the New York State Thruway Authority Board of Directors;
Richard N. Simberg, in his official capacity as Board Member of
the New York State Thruway Authority; J. Donald Rice, Jr., in his
official capacity as Board Member of the New York State Thruway
Authority; and Jose Holguin-Veras, in his official capacity as
Board Member of the New York State Thruway Authority.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents New York State Thruway Employees Local 72,
Joseph E. Colombo, George Savoie and David M. Mazzeo, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Gregg David Adler, Esq.
LIVINGSTON, ADLER, PULDA, MEIKLEJOHN & KELLY, P.C.
557 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
Telephone: (860) 233-9821
Facsimile: (860) 232-7818
E-mail: gdadler@lapm.org
The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by:
Beth A. Bourassa, Esq.
WHITEMAN OSTERMAN & HANNA LLP
1 Commerce Plaza
Albany, NY 12260
Telephone: (518) 487-7617
Facsimile: (518) 487-7777
E-mail: bbourassa@woh.com
PERFORMANCE FOOD: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Perez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE A. PEREZ, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., a
Colorado corporation; VISTAR TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; ROMA FOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC672651 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 18, 2017),
seeks compensatory and punitive damages due to Defendants'
systematic and willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act,
and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants routinely acquire consumer,
investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports to conduct
background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current and
former employees and use information from credit and background
reports in connection with their hiring process without providing
proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in
compliance with the law.
Performance Food Group distributes food products. The company
delivers food ingredients, dining equipment, candy, snacks, and
beverages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Thomas Segal, 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
thomas@setarehlaw.com
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK: De Jesus and Tupil Seek OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
ANA ROSE DE JESUS and CHERWYNE TUPIL, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK, a California Corporation; PNB REMITTANCE CENTERS,
INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. BC673024 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 18, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime wages under California Labor Code.
The Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant for California
Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from
Defendants' failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize
and permit rest periods, failure to pay minimum and straight time
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to maintain accurate
records of hours worked, failure to reimburse business expenses,
failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, and
failure to furnish accurate wage statements.
The Philippine National Bank is one of the largest banks in the
Philippines. It was established by the Philippine government on
July 22, 1916, during the American Occupation.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
PREMIER CONSTRUCTION: "Patterson" Suit Deal OK'd; Hearing Nov. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sandra L. Townes granted preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement and settlement class action, and appointment
of Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel in the lawsuit styled SEAN
PATTERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. PREMIER CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., et al., Case No. 15-CV-00662
(SLT)(ST) (E.D.N.Y.).
The Plaintiffs and Defendants have entered into a Settlement
Agreement, Release, and Waiver intending to resolve, on a global
basis, the litigation in the Court against the Defendants arising
out of wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
The terms of the Parties' Settlement Agreement are conditionally
approved, subject to further consideration thereof at the Fairness
Hearing. The Court conditionally certifies for settlement
purposes only these two classes:
a. A FLSA Settlement Class consisting of the six individuals
who opted-into the FLSA Collective Action in a timely
manner: Arlen Perez Herrera; Asghar Tahir; Carlos Lasso;
Gary Jones; Milton Moreno; and Moises Rosario.
b. A NYLL Settlement Class consisting of the approximately 75
employees who were similarly situated to Plaintiff Sean
Patterson, and who were employed at Premier Construction
Inc. at any time between February 10, 2009 and August 29,
2016.
The Court further conditionally finds that named Plaintiff Sean
Patterson is an adequate class representative for the Settlement
Classes. The Court approves the form of Notice and the Claim
Form, and the manner of notice set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.
A hearing on the final approval of the Settlement is scheduled to
be held November 2, 2017, at 2:30 p.m.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9IYKlek3
R.L. VALLEE: Price-Fixing Lawsuit Grinds Toward Jury Trial
----------------------------------------------------------
The Burlington Free Press reports that a lawsuit alleging price-
fixing by Vermont's gasoline distributors is entering its third
year and probably won't be in front of a jury for at least two
more years.
"To their credit they've managed to drag us out for two years,"
said Michael Murphy, Esq. -- mmurphy@baileyglasser.com of Bailey
Glasser LLP, the Washington, D.C.-based law firm spearheading the
litigation. "They've thrown just about everything they could throw
at us."
The lawsuit, filed in June 2015, alleges price-fixing to the tune
of more than $100 million in improper profits. Bailey Glasser and
The Burlington Law Practice PLLC filed the antitrust case in
Chittenden Superior Court in Burlington against R.L. Vallee Inc.,
SB Collins Inc., Champlain Farms/Wesco Inc. and Champlain Oil. Co.
The six named plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit allege gas
wholesalers agreed to set their wholesale prices at nearly
identical levels to maintain illegally high retail prices in
Chittenden and surrounding counties. They allege the wholesalers
agreed to increase, decrease and maintain their prices at or near
the same time and by the same amount. They further allege
motorists in Chittenden and surrounding counties paid illegally
inflated prices for gas at the wholesalers' gas stations, as well
as stations the wholesalers supplied.
Attorney Tris Coffin, Esq. -- tcoffin@drm.com -- of Downs Rachlin
Martin PLLC in Burlington, represents R.L. Vallee. Coffin told the
Burlington Free Press in an email that his client and the other
defendants in the lawsuit have already produced hundreds of
thousands of documents in hard copy and hundreds of thousands of
emails, "and the plaintiffs have yet to identify a single
communication about price-fixing between any of the defendants or
a single witness who can testify about price-fixing going on."
Murphy, however, said Coffin and the defendants "ignore the import
of circumstantial evidence."
"The question is to what degree these guys interact with each
other for the opportunity to have a tacit agreement or an express
agreement," Murphy said. "It's things like ... how often did you
reach out and try to take business (from one another)?"
Murphy said the defendants have also failed to explain why gas has
historically cost more in Chittenden County than in Rutland, for
example, by a margin of 20 to 25 cents per gallon.
"Vallee testified transportation gets you six or eight cents, but
a persistent 20 to 25 cents, that doesn't get you there," Murphy
said.
In January 2015, the Burlington Free Press reported the gross
profit margin being made by Burlington gas retailers was more than
double the national average. Ben Brockwell, one of the founders of
the Oil Price Information Service, the industry standard for
pricing, told the Free Press he was "flummoxed" by Burlington's
gas prices.
Brockwell said the higher prices were not explained by
transportation costs or the quality of the gas, or a city tax on
gas.
"The answer, I assume, is I have pricing power in that market, I
don't have competition," Brockwell said in 2015.
A recent court decision in the antitrust lawsuit requires the
defendants to produce more information about communications or
meetings between the defendants and the Vermont Petroleum
Association and Vermont Retail and Grocers Association.
Coffin said his client accepts the court's decision and is "happy
to do that."
"So we will now give them some additional documents that will
similarly not support their claims," Coffin said. "They won't find
a smoking gun in these materials because it doesn't exist."
In a related matter, Costco has been trying for a decade to build
gas pumps at its store in Colchester. Construction on the gas
station is well underway following a decision by the Vermont
Supreme Court in August 2016 that Costco may install 12 gas pumps
as part of an expansion of its warehouse store.
The high court issued a unanimous decision that rejected appeals
by R.L. Vallee Inc. and Timberlake Association LLP -- companies
that own gas stations near Costco.
Costco attorney Mark Hall of the law firm Paul Frank + Collins
said on August 18 that Costco still has to make some road
improvements to Lower Mountain View Drive and Route 7 as a
condition for operating the gas station.
Meanwhile, Rodolphe "Skip" Vallee of R.L. Vallee and the
Conservation Law Foundation have appealed the Act 250 and
stormwater permits granted to a larger project by the Vermont
Agency of Transportation to build a "diverging diamond" to ease
congestion at Exit 16 on Interstate 89, where Costco is located.
Attorney Chris Kilian, director of the Conservation Law
Foundation, said on August 18 his organization joined Vallee's
legal challenge to the VTrans project because of water-quality
concerns.
"Conservation Law Foundation is not involved in the gas wars,"
Kilian said. "We would never care about or take a side on those
issues, but we are very concerned about stormwater pollution and
how the law is applied."
Mark Hall said the VTrans "double diamond" project does not have
to be completed for the Costco gas station to go forward. [GN]
RED PARROT: Senior Care Moves for Certification of Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled SENIOR CARE GROUP, INC.,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. RED PARROT DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Florida
corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 8:17-cv-00760-JDW-TGW
(M.D. Fla.), seeks an order certifying these classes:
Class A
All persons or entities who were successfully sent a fax by
or on behalf of "Red Parrot," on or about February 23, 2017,
stating "got drams?," stating "Red Parrot Distribution
supplies pharmaceuticals and the vials and bottles to put
them in," and stating the vials are "in stock, competitive
pricing, and available for next day delivery."
Class B
All persons or entities who were successfully sent a fax by
or on behalf of Red Perrot, designated as follows: (1)
"Special," sent May 5, 2014; (2) "Special," sent May 12,
2014; (3) "Weekly Specials," sent May 21, 2014; (4)
"Specials," sent May 27, 2014; (5) "Weekly Specials," sent
June 3, 2014; (6) "Specials," sent on June 17, 2014; (7)
"Weekly Specials," sent July 7, 2014; (8) "Specials," sent
July 14, 2014; (9) "Specials, sent July 21, 2014; (10)
"Weekly Specials," sent July 25, 2014; (11) "Special
7/28/14," sent July 28, 2014; (12) "Specials," sent
August 4, 2014; (13) "Specials," sent August 11, 2014; (14)
"Weekly Specials," sent August 19, 2014; (15)
"6-4-15-PHARMACY -6-4-1," sent June 4, 2015; (16) "6-16-15
pharmacy," sent June 16, 2015; (17) "Drug Test Fax," sent
October 22, 2015; (18) "Non-Pharma 10-28-15," sent
October 29, 2015; (19) "Independant Pharmacies," sent
November 4, 2015; (20) "Non-RX Nov. 10," sent November 11,
2015; (21) "IPRX-Independent Pharma - Independent
Pharmacies," sent November 19, 2015; (22) "HH EOY Sale -
Non-Pharma 10-2015," sent November 19, 2015; (23) "RX Dec. 7
2015," sent Dec. 8, 2015; (24) "05.09.16," sent May 9, 2016;
(25) "Weekly Specials," sent May 23, 2016; (26) "EOM
Specials," sent August 31, 2016; (27) "pet phcy fax
9-30-16," sent September 30, 2016; (28) "RX OTC Mech
10/2016," sent October 24, 2016; (29) "Halloween RX fax,"
sent October 31, 2016; (30) "Cash Sales Add Ons," sent
November 11, 2016; (28) "Name Your Price," sent November 18,
2016; (29) "Dram Flyer," sent November 22, 2016; (30) "Cash
Sales Add Ons," sent November 14, 2016; (31) "Name Your
Price," sent November 18, 2016; (32) "Dram Flyer," sent
November 22, 2016; (33) "Black Friday," sent November 24,
2016; (34) "Sugar Free," sent December 2, 2016; (35) "Name
Your Price Dec," sent December 9, 2016; (36) "End of Year,"
sent December 19, 2016; (37) "Diabetic All Ind.," sent
January 11, 2016); (38) IND RX JAN 2016," sent January 19,
2016; (39) "HH JAN 2016," sent January 27, 2016; (40)
"Specials 3-17-16," sent March 17, 2016; (41) "New Year -
Updated pharmacies clean list 09.30.16," sent January 9,
2017; (42) "Ibuprofen," sent January 16, 2017; (43) "New
Lock Laces," sent February 10, 2017; (44) "Valentine's Day
2017 - Updated pharmacies clean," sent February 14, 2017;
(45) "Drams - Non-Pharma," sent February 23, 2017; (46)
"Drams-Updated pharmacies clean list .09.30.16," sent
February 23, 2017; (47) "Nebulizers," sent March 1, 2017;
and (48) "Diabetic Specials - Updated pharmacies clean
list," sent March 15, 2017.
Senior Care Group also asks the Court to appoint it as class
representative and to appoint the law firm of Anderson + Wanca as
class counsel.
The case arises out of a fax-advertising campaign wherein a
facsimile advertisement was sent to the Plaintiff and the proposed
class on February 23, 2017. The Plaintiff brought the lawsuit
alleging the Fax violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BSARV8zr
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
RIGHTSCORP: Bleeds Another Million, Borrows $200K from BMG
----------------------------------------------------------
Torrent Freak reports that according to a new filing, anti-piracy
outfit Rightscorp incurred a net loss of more than $1m during the
first six months of 2017, raising new doubts about its ability to
continue as a going concern. The situation was so serious earlier
this year that the company had to borrow $200,000 from customer
BMG to settle a lawsuit. At the end of June, Rightscorp had just
$1,725 in cash.
Anti-piracy outfit Rightscorp is one of the many companies trying
to turn Internet piracy into profit. The company has a somewhat
novel approach but has difficulty balancing the books.
Essentially, Rightscorp operates like other so-called copyright-
trolling operations, in that it monitors alleged offenders on
BitTorrent networks, tracks them to their ISPs, then attempts to
extract a cash settlement. Rightscorp does this by sending DMCA
notices with settlement agreements attached, in the hope that at-
this-point-anonymous Internet users break cover in panic. This can
lead to a $20 or $30 'fine' or in some cases dozens of multiples
of that.
But despite settling hundreds of thousands of these cases, profit
has thus far proven elusive, with the company hemorrhaging
millions in losses. The company has just filed its results for the
first half of 2017 and they contain more bad news.
In the six months ended June 2017, revenues obtained from
copyright settlements reached just $138,514, that's 35% down on
the $214,326 generated in the same period last year. However, the
company did manage to book $148,332 in "consulting revenue" in the
first half of this year, a business area that generated no revenue
in 2016.
Overall then, total revenue for the six month period was $286,846
-- up from $214,326 last year. While that's a better picture in
its own right, Rightscorp has a lot of costs attached to its
business.
After paying out $69,257 to copyright holders and absorbing
$1,190,696 in general and administrative costs, among other
things, the company's total operating expenses topped out at
$1,296,127 for the first six months of the year.
To make a long story short, the company made a net loss of
$1,068,422, which was more than the $995,265 loss it made last
year and despite improved revenues. The company ended June with
just $1,725 in cash.
"These factors raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability
to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that
the financial statements are issued," the company's latest
statement reads.
This hanging-by-a-thread narrative has followed Rightscorp for the
past few years but there's information in the latest accounts
which indicates how bad things were at the start of the year.
In January 2016, Rightscorp and several copyright holders,
including Hollywood studio Warner Bros, agreed to settle a class-
action lawsuit over intimidating robo-calls that were made to
alleged infringers. The defendants agreed to set aside $450,000 to
cover the costs, and it appears that Rightscorp was liable for at
least $200,000 of that.
Rightscorp hasn't exactly been flush with cash, so it was
interesting to read that its main consumer piracy settlement
client, music publisher BMG, actually stepped in to pay off the
class-action settlement.
"At December 31, 2016, the Company had accrued $200,000 related to
the settlement of a class action complaint. On January 7, 2017,
BMG Rights Management (US) LLC ("BMG") advanced the Company
$200,000, which was used to pay off the settlement. The advance
from BMG is to be applied to future billings from the Company to
BMG for consulting services," Rightscorp's filing reads.
With Rightscorp's future BMG revenue now being gobbled up by what
appears to be loan repayments, it becomes difficult to see how the
anti-piracy outfit can make enough money to pay off the $200,000
debt. However, its filing notes that on July 21, 2017, the company
issued "an aggregate of 10,000,000 shares of common stock to an
investor for a purchase price of $200,000." While that amount
matches the BMG debt, the filing doesn't reveal who the investor
is.
The filing also reveals that on July 31, Rightscorp entered into
two agreements to provide services "to a holder of multiple
copyrights." The copyright holder isn't named, but the deal
reveals that it's in Rightscorp's best interests to get immediate
payment from people to whom it sends cash settlement demands.
"[Rightscorp] will receive 50% of all gross proceeds of any
settlement revenue received by the Client from pre-lawsuit
'advisory notices,' and 37.5% of all gross proceeds received by
the Client from 'final warning' notices sent immediately prior to
a lawsuit," the filing notes.
Also of interest is that Rightscorp has offered not to work with
any of the copyright holders' direct competitors, providing
certain thresholds are met -- $10,000 revenue in the first month
to $100,000 after 12 months. But there's more to the deal.
Rightscorp will also provide a number of services to this client
including detecting and verifying copyright works on P2P networks,
providing information about infringers, plus reporting, litigation
support, and copyright protection advisory services.
For this, Rightscorp will earn $10,000 for the first three months,
rising to $85,000 per month after 16 months, valuable revenue for
a company fighting for its life. [GN]
ROBERT J. POWELL: No Sanctions for Court Request Response Delay
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Halpin, writing for Standard Speaker, reports a federal
judge declined to sanction kids-for-cash figure Robert J. Powell's
legal team because of a delay getting documentation needed to
calculate his net worth, finding that there is no evidence that
the delay was the result of bad faith.
Plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit are seeking to verify the net
worth of Powell, a former Drums-based attorney who admitted he
paid $770,000 in bribes to former Luzerne County judges Mark A.
Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan in exchange for them
funneling juvenile defendants to two private, for-profit detention
centers Powell partly owned.
In March 2015, Powell reached a settlement with the victims,
agreeing to an initial $4.75 million payment and another payment
of up to $2.75 million. The amount of the second payment, if any,
will be based on Powell's net worth.
This spring, Powell's attorneys claimed he has a net worth of
negative $5.6 million -- a figure that would result in no
additional payments to the victims under terms of a settlement
agreement.
They have been seeking documentation to verify his worth, and
subsequently filed a motion seeking to compel Powell to turn over
the requested documentation.
In an order, U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo wrote that
Powell's attorneys promised to turn over the documentation by the
end of May, so there is no reason to order Powell to turn over
documents "which have already been produced."
The judge also rejected a request for sanctions because of a delay
in getting documentation, writing that there are no deadlines for
that process and there is no evidence the delay between the
request in March and the scheduled production at the end of May
was in bad faith.
Powell's settlement is the third for the victims in the scandal
that drew national attention. In 2013, the involved detention
facilities -- Mid-Atlantic Youth Services Corp., PA Child Care LLC
and Western PA Child Care LLC -- reached a $2.5 million settlement
with the plaintiffs.
Robert K. Mericle, whose company built the juvenile detention
centers and who served a year in prison for failing to report a
felony, previously settled with the plaintiffs for $17.75 million.
The former judges are serving lengthy sentences in federal prison.
[GN]
ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Says Payments Have Been Made in "Yedlowski" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roka Bioscience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that all payments have been
made in accordance with the settlement agreement in an amended
complaint, captioned Stanley Yedlowski v. Roka Bioscience, Inc.,
Case No. 14-cv-8020 (D. N.J.).
A putative securities class action originally captioned Ding v.
Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-8020, was filed against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
December 24, 2014, on behalf of a putative class of persons and
entities who had purchased or otherwise acquired securities
pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement for the
Company's IPO. The original putative class period ran from July 17
through November 6, 2014.
The original complaint asserted claims under the Securities Act of
1933 and contended that the IPO Registration Statement was false
and misleading, or omitted allegedly material information, in
connection with the Company's statements about its placement of
Atlas instruments and its expectations of future growth and
increased market share, and the Company's alleged failure to
disclose "known trends and uncertainties about the Company's
sales." The alleged misrepresentations and omissions purportedly
came to light when the Company issued its third-quarter 2014
earnings release on November 6, 2014.
Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
the court appointed Stanley Yedlowski as lead plaintiff and The
Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel on April 21, 2015. The lead
plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, captioned Stanley
Yedlowski v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-8020, on June
23, 2015. The amended complaint pled Securities Act claims on
behalf of persons and entities who had purchased or otherwise
acquired Roka securities pursuant or traceable to the IPO
Registration Statement during an extended putative class period,
running from July 17, 2014 through March 26, 2015. The amended
complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was false or
misleading in that it failed to disclose that the Company's
customers purportedly were experiencing false positives and other
usage issues with the Company's Listeria assays apparently arising
from the customers' employees' inability to follow the Company's
Listeria assay workflow. The amended complaint alleged that the
full extent of the purported misstatements and omissions was not
revealed until March 26, 2015.
Defendants filed a motion on August 25, 2015 to dismiss the
amended complaint, and plaintiffs filed an opposition to that
motion on October 9, 2015. The parties entered into a settlement
agreement, which was approved by the court in December 2016, to
pay approximately $3.3 million. As of June 30, 2017, all payments
have been made in accordance with the settlement agreement and the
corresponding receivable and liability are no longer recorded on
the Company's Balance Sheet.
Roka Bioscience, Inc. is a molecular diagnostics company focused
on providing advanced testing solutions for the detection of
foodborne pathogens. The company was founded in 2009 through the
acquisition of the industrial application market assets of Gen-
Probe. Roka Bioscience is based in Warren New Jersey.
SITO MOBILE: Waiting for Discovery to Commence
----------------------------------------------
Sito Mobile Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that discovery has not yet
commenced in a class action lawsuit.
Sito Mobile Ltd. said, "A purported securities class action
lawsuit was filed on February 17, 2017 in the United States
District Court of New Jersey against us, Jerry Hug, our
former Chief Executive Officer and Director, and Kurt Streams, our
former Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer."
The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and
78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17
C.F.R. Sec. 240. This action was brought on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired SITO common
stock between February 9, 2016 and January 2, 2017 and seeks
unspecified money damages. The allegations in this complaint
center on allegedly materially false and/or misleading statements,
misrepresenting SITO's media placement revenues. A lead plaintiff
was appointed on May 8, 2017 and has until June 22, 2017 to file
an amended complaint. Discovery has not commenced.
Sito Mobile Ltd. provides a mobile engagement platform that
enables brands to increase awareness, loyalty, and ultimately
sales and is based on Jersey City, New Jersey.
SONOS INC: Faces "Solomon" Suit over Data Collection
----------------------------------------------------
Jason Solomon, and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
Sonos, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 17-2680C (Mass. Super. Ct.,
Aug. 22, 2017), seeks judgment, preliminary and permanent relief,
including injunctive relief, in their favor and in the favor of
the class and against the Defendant.
Sonos, Inc. makes high-end wireless speakers. The people who
purchase Sonos, speakers do so to have great-sounding music spread
wirelessly with Sonos' high-quality sound throughout their home.
The company promises a wireless system that "sets up quickly and
makes listening easy." Many customers purchase multiple Sonos
speakers, which work together in a mesh network. Customers who
purchase a Sonos speaker are required to install a Sonos app on
their phones or computers which they can use to control the
speaker and direct music and other audio to the speakers. Users
can opt out of certain Sonos data collection efforts, but are not
able to switch off Sonos collection of data the company considers
necessary for each Sonos device to perform its basic functions.
This data includes "email addresses, IP addresses, and account
login information, as well as device data, information about Wi-Fi
antennas and other hardware information, room names, and error
data." Sonos customers pay a premium price for the Sonos products.
Speakers sell for between $199 and $499 each.
Plaintiff purchased various Sonos speakers for over $1,000 on or
around January 2015. Plaintiff has used his Sonos product without
issue since purchasing it. Plaintiff would not have purchased a
Sonos speaker, or would have agreed to pay less for it, if knew
that he had to agree to Sonos' new privacy policy and collection
of data to use the product. Plaintiff does not wish to assent to
Sonos' new privacy policy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
Block & Leviton LLP
155 Federal Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone (617) 398 5600
E-mail: jason@blockesq.com
jake@blockesq.com
SONY MOBILE: Sony Xperia Class Settlement Preliminarily Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed nationwide class action settlement has been
preliminarily approved by a federal court in New York involving
Sony Mobile Communications (U.S.A.), Inc. and Sony Electronics,
Inc. concerning the alleged waterproof capabilities of certain
Xperia smartphones and tablets. Sony denies the allegations.
The class includes owners, purchasers and others of certain Xperia
smartphones and tablets. A fairness hearing has been set for
December 1, 2017. There are upcoming deadlines for class members
to exercise their rights. For more information, please go to:
www.xperiawaterproofsettlement.com or 1-844-367-8807 or contact
Nancy Kulesa at Levi & Korsinsky at (212) 363-7500. [GN]
SOULCYCLE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Health Club Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Kilgannon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Soulcycle, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-06278 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 18, 2017), is an action for damages as a proximate result
of the Defendant's failure to provide its customers a copy of
their health club contract that do not contain the requisite
language related to the customers' rights to cancel the contract.
Soulcycle, Inc. operates a health club in Westchester County, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan S. Schwartz, Esq.
SCHWARTZ LAW PC
122 East 42nd Street, Suite 725
New York, NY 10168
Telephone: (212) 608-5445
- and -
Stephen M. Hauptman, Esq.
NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP
895 Dove Street, 5th Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 854-7000
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Underpays Workers, Deanda Says
---------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN DEANDA, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PIZZA
COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. BC672995 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug.
18, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay under
California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay for all
time worked every pay period, specifically including required
minimum wages and daily overtime; failed to provide off-duty meal
and rest periods to Plaintiff and all others similarly situated;
failed to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated one hour
of pay at their regular rate of compensation for each instance
that Defendant failed to provide statutorily mandated rest periods
and off-duty meal periods; and for penalties arising from
Defendant's issuing to Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
inaccurate wage statements.
The Defendant is in the Pizza Restaurants business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ophir J. Bitton, Esq.
Emma D. Enriquez, Esq.
BITTON & ASSOCIATES
7220 Melrose Avenue, 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90046
Telephone: (310) 356 1006
SPARTON CORP: Scarantino Sues over Ultra Electronics Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SPARTON CORPORATION, JOSEPH
J. HARTNETT, JAMES R. SWARTWOUT, DAVID P. MOLFENTER, JAMES D.
FAST, CHARLES KUMMETH, FRANK A. WILSON, ALAN L. BAZAAR, JOHN A.
JANITZ, ULTRA ELECTRONICS HOLDINGS PLC, and ULTRA ELECTRONICS
ANEIRA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01741 (N.D. Ohio,
Aug. 18, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting
in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing a proposed transaction, and in the event Defendants
consummate the proposed transaction, rescinding it and setting it
aside or awarding rescissory damages.
This action stems from proposed transaction announced on July 7,
2017, pursuant to which Sparton Corporation will be acquired by
Ultra Electronics Holdings plc and Ultra Electronics Aneira Inc.
On July 7, 2017, Sparton's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Ultra. Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Sparton will
receive $23.50 per share in cash. On August 4, 2017, Defendants
filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.
Sparton Corporation is a provider of design, development and
manufacturing services for electromechanical devices, as well as
engineered products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Camillus, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS, LLC
P.O. Box 141410
Columbus, OH 43214
Telephone: (614) 558 7254
E-mail: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com
- and -
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
Righter Parkway, Suite 120
Wilmington, DE 19803
Telephone: (302) 295 5310
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324 6800
SPARTON CORP: "Sheahen" Suit Seeks Enjoins Merger with Ultra
------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN SHEAHEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SPARTON CORPORATION, JAMES R.
SWARTWOUT, JOSEPH J. HARTNETT, DAVID P. MOLFENTER, JAMES DALE
FAST, CHARLES R. KUMMETH, FRANK ANDERS WILSON, ALAN L. BAZAAR, and
JOHN A. JANITZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01742 (N.D.
Ohio., Aug. 18, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants, their agents,
counsel, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them
from consummating the Proposed Transaction, unless and until the
Company adopts and implements a procedure or process to obtain the
best available terms for shareholders.
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the public
stockholders of Sparton Corporation against the Company and
Sparton's Board of Directors for their violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On July 7,
2017, Ultra Electronics Holdings plc (Ultra) and the Company
announced that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger pursuant to which Ultra will acquire all of the outstanding
shares of Sparton for $23.50 per share in cash. Pursuant to the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the merger
agreement, should Sparton stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, Ultra Electronics Aneira Inc., an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of Ultra, will be merged with and into
Sparton so that the Company will be the surviving corporation in
the merger and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Ultra. The
Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $235 million. On
August 4, 2017, Defendants issued materially incomplete and
misleading disclosures in the Schedule 14A Proxy Statement (filed
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement is
deficient and misleading in that it fails to provide adequate
disclosures of all material information related to the Proposed
Transaction.
Sparton Corporation is a provider of design, development and
manufacturing services for electromechanical devices, as well as
engineered products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Camillus, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS, LLC
P.O. Box 141410 Columbus, OH 43214
Telephone: (614) 558-7254
E-mail: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com
- and -
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 524 4290
Facsimile: (202) 333 2121
STARWOOD HOTELS: Creamer Moves to Certify Class of Participants
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CHARLES CREAMER and JENNIFER
TREVINO, Plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of all
persons similarly situated v. STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE,
INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-09321-DSF-MRW (C.D. Cal.), move the Court
to certify this class:
All participants in and beneficiaries of the Starwood
Retirement Plan for the period from six years before the
filing of this action until the time of trial (the Class
Period).
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ioHIKZOR
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
SOLOUKI SAVOY, LLP
316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (213) 814-4940
Facsimile: (213) 814-2550
E-mail: grant@soloukisavoy.com
shoham@soloukisavoy.com
- and -
Howard B. Prossnitz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD PROSSNITZ
203 Forest Avenue
Oak Park, IL 60302
Telephone: (708) 203-5747
E-mail: prossnitzlaw@gmail.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jennifer S. Romano, Esq.
Megan A. Weisberger, Esq.
Jeffrey Poston, Esq.
Charles D. Austin, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING LLP
515 South Flower St., 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2201
Telephone: (213) 443-5552
Facsimile: (213) 622-2690
E-mail: jromano@crowell.com
jromano@crowell.com
mweisberger@crowell.com
jposton@crowell.com
caustin@crowell.com
STATE FARM: Certification of Two Classes Sought in "Sos" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Sos moves the Court for an order certifying the case
captioned ANTHONY SOS v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a foreign insurance company, Case No. 6:17-cv-00890-PGB-
KRS (M.D. Fla.), as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and
(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule
4.04.
The case involves the Defendant's alleged breach of contract for
failure to pay complete sales tax as part of the actual cash value
("ACV") replacement cost of total loss vehicles insured with
comprehensive coverage and collision coverage.
The classes are defined as:
FLORIDA CLASS
All insureds, under a Florida policy issued by State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company covering a vehicle that
was a total loss and insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company comprehensive or collision ACV coverage
within the five year time period prior to the date on which
this lawsuit was filed till the date of any certification
order.
NATIONAL CLASS
All insureds, under any policy issued by State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company covering a vehicle that was a
total loss and insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company Comprehensive or Collision with ACV
coverage within the five year time period prior to the date
on which this lawsuit was filed till the date of any
certification order.
The Plaintiff also asks the Court to allow the Parties to engage
in discovery on class-wide issues, and to grant leave to file a
full memorandum in support of the Motion upon the conclusion of
class-wide discovery.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SvgYJWME
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
Jacob Phillips, Esq.
NORMAND LAW, PLLC
62 W. Colonial Dr., Suite 209
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
E-mail: ed@ednormand.com
Jacob@ednormand.com
- and -
Christopher J. Lynch, Esq.
CHRISTOPHER J. LYNCH, P.A.
6915 Red Road, Suite 208
Coral Gables, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 443-6200
Facsimile: (305) 443-6204
E-mail: Clynch@hunterlynchlaw.com
Lmartinez@hunterlynchaw.com
SUMMIT AIR: "Wagner" Suit Moved to District of Montana
------------------------------------------------------
STAN and RAINY WAGNER, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUMMIT AIR AMBULANCE, LLC,
REACH AIR MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1-X, the Defendants, was
removed from the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, to
the United States District Court for the District of Montana. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00057-BMM to the
proceeding.
The case seeks to recover monetary damages, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees as a result Defendants' failure to identify
pricing prior to the air transport and charging rates for air
ambulance services in excess of the services' reasonable worth.
Summit Air provides air ambulance services. The company offers
medical care and transportation for critically ill or injured
patients.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
William J. Mattix, Esq.
CROWLEY FLECK PLLP
500 Transwestem Plaza II
490 North 31st Street
P.O. Box 2529
Billings, MT 59103-2529
Telephone: (406) 252 3441
Facsimile: (406) 259 4159
E-mail: wmattix@crowleyfleck.com
- and -
Joshua L. Fuchs, Esq.
Nicole M. Perry, Esq.
JONES DAY
717 Texas Street, Suite 3300
Houston, TX 770022712
Telephone: (832) 239 3939
Facsimile: (832) 293 3600
E-mail: jlfuchs@jonesday.com
nmperry@jonesday.com
T-MOBILE US: "Ames" Suit Moved to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Patrick Ames, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 37-02017-00023549-CU-NP-CTL, was removed on
Aug. 18, 2017 from the Superior Court of CA, County of San Diego,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
01666-L-AGS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge M. James Lorenz.
T-Mobile US is a major wireless network operator in the United
States. The German telecommunications company Deutsche Telekom is
its majority shareholder.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206 4741
Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth Anne Sperling, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 576 1000
Facsimile: (213) 576 1100
E-mail: elizabeth.sperling@alston.com
TALISMAN ENERGY: Faces 3 Lawsuits over Mineral Rights Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three lawsuits have been filed against Talisman Energy USA, Inc.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has arbitrarily manipulated
reported production volumes and royalty payments from joint
venture wells operated by Defendant itself prior to calculating
royalty payments to Plaintiff.
According to each of the complaint, from at least June 2013,
Talisman Energy USA has systematically failed and refused to pay
Plaintiff(s) the full royalties due and owing according to their
mineral rights and leases.
The three lawsuits are captioned as:
HASKINS MONTGOMERY, the Plaintiff, v. TALISMAN ENERGY USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02407 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 7, 2017);
THE RICKS LIVING TRUST, SAM B. RICKS, TRUSTEE v. TALISMAN ENERGY
USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02405 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 7,
2017); and
v. TALISMAN ENERGY USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02412
(S.D. Tex., Aug. 7, 2017).
Talisman Energy USA, Inc. owns working interests in approximately
4,500 oil and gas leases in the South Texas Eagle Ford shale play
in which Plaintiff owns mineral rights.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bryan O. Blevins, Jr.
PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM, .L.P.
490 Park Street
P.O. Box 4905
Beaumont, TX 77704
Telephone: (409) 835 6000
Facsimile: (409) 813 8605
E-mail: bblevins@pulf.com
- and -
T. Ernest Freeman, Esq.
Stephen G. Scholl, Esq.
THE FREEMAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
1770 St. James Place, Suite 120
Houston, Texas 77056
Telephone: (713) 973 1000
Facsimile: (713) 973 1004
E-mail: ernest@thefreemanlawfirm.com
steve@thefreemanlawfirm.com
TALKTALK: Scam Victims Move Closer to Class-Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Miles Brignall, writing for The Guardian, reports that lawyers
acting for around 50 people defrauded by scammers after a major
data breach at TalkTalk in 2014 are discussing their next move,
which victims hope could herald the start of legal action against
the broadband firm.
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) announced it was
fining TalkTalk ú100,000 for failing to look after its customers'
data. The ICO said TalkTalk had breached data protection laws by
allowing unjustifiably wide-ranging access to its systems by
external companies, including Wipro, an Indian IT services firm it
employed to deal with complaints and coverage problems. Staff
there had access to large quantities of TalkTalk customers' data
including names, addresses, phone numbers and account details.
The ICO report referred to 21,000 TalkTalk customers who'd had
their data breached. Fraudsters started to ring TalkTalk customers
at home, quoting their account numbers, and were able to convince
them that they were calling from the broadband firm. Customers,
who were used to talking to Indian staff at the telecoms firm,
were told there were internet problems that required a fix. The
fraudsters conned the customers into giving them access to their
bank accounts to make a ú250 payment. Instead, they had their
accounts cleaned out.
In 2015, Guardian Money featured the case of Graeme Smith who
lived near Chester-le-Street in County Durham. He lost ú2,800 to
fraudsters who had obtained his account details. Since then
several others have come forward, some of whom have lost larger
sums.
TalkTalk has consistently denied responsibility for the frauds,
arguing that these customers were duped in the same way as many
others are by frauds that plague UK consumers.
Lawyers acting for the victims had been waiting for the ICO to
rule on the data breach before starting legal proceedings. Sean
Humber, a solicitor at information law specialist Leigh Day, who
is bringing the group action, said his firm would be speaking to
barristers shortly "before we make a decision regarding the
action".
"We welcome the ICO's recognition of TalkTalk's failure to protect
its customers' information, leaving them at huge risk of being
targeted by fraudsters," Humber said. "Customers of all companies,
particularly those that hold large amounts of data online, should
be able to trust that their personal and private information is
safe.
"The ICO recognised that this data breach was of a kind likely to
result in customers being scammed. Those affected may have claims
for compensation under the Data Protection Act, and for a breach
of their confidence, by arguing that the losses suffered were
caused by TalkTalk's failure to keep their personal information
secure."
TalkTalk said: "We notified the ICO in 2014 of our suspicions that
a small number of employees at one of our third-party suppliers
were abusing their access to non-financial customer data. We
informed our customers at the time and launched a thorough
investigation, which has led to us to withdraw all customer
service operations from India. We continue to take our customers'
data and privacy incredibly seriously, and while there is no
evidence that any of the data was passed on to third parties, we
apologise to those affected."
TalkTalk customers who have been scammed can contact Leigh Day on
020 7650 1200, or by emailing -- shumber@leighday.co.uk -- or --
abalasingam@leighday.co.uk
TECHNIPFMC PLC: October 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announces that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division on behalf of
investors who purchased TechnipFMC plc ("TechnipFMC") (NYSE: FTI)
securities between April 27, 2017 and July 24, 2017.
According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) TechnipFMC had a material weakness in
its internal control over rates used in the calculations of the
foreign currency effects on certain of its engineering and
construction projects; (ii) accordingly, the Company lacked
effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (iii) as
a result of the foregoing, TechnipFMC's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
If you suffered a loss in TechnipFMC you have until October 2,
2017 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-
sb/technipfmc-plc?wire=2.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong
Tel: 212-425-1140
Fax: 866-699-3880
E-mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
TRANZVIA LLC: Naiman Sues over Pre-Recorded Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRANZVIA LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-04813-JCS (N.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2017), seeks injunctive
relief prohibiting Tranzvia, its affiliates and agents, and/or any
other persons or entities acting on its behalf from violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, by making calls, except for
emergency purposes, to any cellular telephone numbers using an
automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or
prerecorded voice.
According to the complaint, on June 8, 2017, Plaintiff's telephone
number was called with a pre-recorded message by Mr. Rose's
office. The caller ID showed the telephone call was from (270)
594-7041. When the call was answered, there was a lengthy pause
and a click followed by silence before any voice came on the line,
which indicated that the call was made using an ATDS. Following
the lengthy pause and extended silence, a prerecorded message
played words to the effect that the call was being made to sell
credit card processing services. The called party was instructed
to press a button on his telephone for further information. In an
attempt to determine the identity of the caller, the recipient
pressed the button for further information and was instructed by
another prerecorded voice to leave a voice message with a
telephone number. Shortly after leaving his voice message,
Plaintiff received a call from Brandon Arvizu, who claimed to be
with Tranzvia and proceeded to try to sell Tranzvia products.
Tranzvia is a provider of payment technology services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon B. Fougner, Esq.
FOUGNER LAW
600 California Street, 11th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (434) 623 2843
Facsimile: (206) 338 0783
E-mail: Jon@FougnerLaw.com
TRFC 932: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Under FLSA, New York Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS ARMANDO ARELLANO AGUILAR, and DIANA ARACELI VICTORIA CAAMAL,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, against T.R.F.C. 932 RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES, LTD.
(d/b/a MATT'S GRILL) and TERENCE G. FERGUSON, Defendants, Case No:
1:17-cv-05960 (S.D.N.Y., August 7, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs
worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that they worked
over 40.
Rather, prior to March 2017, Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked and failed to pay
Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours they worked over 40.
Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Araceli the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which she worked over 10
hours per day.
The case was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
New York Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commission of Labor.
Defendants own, operate, or control an American restaurant.
Plaintiffs were employed as a cook and a salad maker and
dishwasher.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Fax: (212) 317-1620
TRIBECA RESTAURANT: Faces "Sharma" Suit in S.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tribeca Restaurant
LLC doing business as: Benares. The case is styled as Himanshu
Sharma, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Tribeca Restaurant LLC doing business as: Benares,
Benares Indian Restaurant LLC doing business as: Benares, SJG
Foods LLC, doing business as: Benares, Aangan Indian Restaurant
Inc. doing business as: Aangan, Ranjit K. Singh, Inder Singh also
known as: Nitu Singh, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06413 (S.D.
N.Y., August 23, 2017).
Tribeca Restaurant LLC does business in the restaurant industry.
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
TUROCZY BONDING: Faces "Lane" Suit over Bail Bonds
--------------------------------------------------
ROY LANE, 575 Baldwin Ave., Elyria, OH 44035, On behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TUROCZY
BONDING COMPANY c/o Incorp. Services, Inc. 9435 Waterstone Blvd.
No. 140 Cincinnati, OH 45249; EDDIE LEE LEGACY, INC. c/o Garrett
Michael McClellan 1200 West Third Street, Suite 190 Cleveland, OH
44113; CUFFS OFF BAIL BONDS, INC. c/o Brian Jerome Cole 4085 Chain
Bridge Road, Ste. 100 Fairfax, VA 22030; EDDIE E. LEE IRREVOCABLE
TRUST LTD. co Lake City Bank, Trustee
c/o David M. Findlay 202 East Center Street Warsaw, IN 46581; and
LAKE CITY BANK, TRUSTEE FOR EDDIE E. LEE IRREVOCABLE TRUST LTD.
c/o David M. Findlay 202 E. Center St. Warsaw, IN 46581, the
Defendants, Case No. CV17884893 (Court Of Common Pleas Cuyahoga
County, Ohio, Aug. 22, 2017), seeks to recover damages including
but not limited to out-of-pocket expense as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendants' conspiracy to commit fraudulent
transfers.
The case is a class action on behalf of Plaintiff Roy Lane and
other bail bond agents who worked for Turoczy Bonding Company, now
operating as Eddie Lee Legacy Inc. The Plaintiff and other class
members wrote bail bonds for Turoczy on a commission basis,
earning 40% of the premium paid for bonds having a face value of
$5,000 or more, and 30% of the premium paid for bonds having a
face value less than $5,000. Turoczy Bonding owes unpaid
commissions on the premiums it collected after the indemnitors'
initial payments. Turoczy Bonding allegedly conspired with other
Defendants to commit fraudulent transfers, and did in fact
transfer assets to them, in defraud of the obligations owed to
Plaintiff and other class members.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
The Superior Building
815 Superior Avenue E., Suite 1325
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (440) 498 9100
E-mail: iscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
- and -
Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Telephone: (440) 973 9000
E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com
VALLEY COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lester" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Lester, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Valley Collection Service, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01260 (W.D.
Wa., August 18, 2017), seeks to put an end to the Defendant's
practice of using a false, deceptive, or misleading representation
or means in connection with the collection of a debt.
Valley Collection Service, LLC operates a debt collection firm
located in City of Glendale, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
HYDE & SWIGART
2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
- and -
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
1546 NW 56th Street
Seattle, WA 98107
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
WANG'S GREAT: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Lin" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ji Quan Lin, Tian Ming Liu, and Zeng Xiu Liu, individually and on
behalf all other employees similarly situated v. Wang's Great Wall
Inc. d/b/a Great Wall, Jun Xing Wang, and "John" (first name
unknown) Zou, Case No. 1:17-cv-06292 (S.D.N.Y., August 18, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages
and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 384 Grand
Street, New York, NY 10002. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jian Hang, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8588
E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com
WATERWORKS AQUATICS: Faces "See" Suit over OT and Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
PEYTON SEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WATERWORKS AQUATICS, a California
corporation; WATERWORKS AQUATICS BEVERLY HILLS, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC673413 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 22, 2017), seeks to
recover overtime and minimum wages under the California Labor
Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to pay wages, including overtime wages, to
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the State of
California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as
a result of, including but not limited to, unevenly rounding time
worked.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Nourmand, Esq.
James A. De Sario, Esq.
THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
8822 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone (310) 553 3600
Facsimile (310) 553 3603
WEST MARINE: October 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of current stockholders of West Marine, Inc.
("West Marine" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:WMAR) in connection with
the planned acquisition of the company by affiliates of Monomoy
Capital Partners.
On June 29, 2017, West Marine announced it had entered into an
agreement, pursuant to which Monomoy's affiliates, Rising Tide
Parent, Inc. and Rising Tide Merger Sub, Inc., would acquire all
outstanding shares of West Marine common stock for $12.97 per
share. The lawsuit, which was filed on July 31, 2017 and entitled
Greenberg v. West Marine, Inc., et al. (Case No. 5:17-cv-04345),
alleges that defendants solicit stockholders' votes in support of
the sale of the Company through a Proxy Statement that omits
material facts necessary to make the statements therein not false
or misleading. Stockholders require this material information to
make a properly informed decision on how to vote their shares.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 17, 2017. If you wish to discuss this action or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Joseph E. Levi, at
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, (212) 363-7500, or via e-mail at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. Any member of the putative class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.
A CLASS HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE.
Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive experience representing investors in securities
litigation, and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
aggrieved shareholders.
Contacts
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq., 212-363-7500
Toll Free: 877-363-5972
Fax: 212-363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
ZILLOW GROUP: Fails to Disclose Program Violations, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in Los Angeles, claims Zillow Group pumped
its stock price by failing to disclose that its "co-marketing
program" violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
The case is captioned, STEPHEN VARGOSKO, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ZILLOW
GROUP, INC., SPENCER M. RASCOFF, and KATHLEEN PHILIPS, Defendants.
Case 2:17-cv-06207 August 22, 2017 (C.D. Cal.)
Counsel for Plaintiff:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
* "Paulcin" Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled PROPHET PAULCIN v. UNKNOWN
DEFENDANTS, Case No. 2:17-cv-00232-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla.), moves for
temporary restraining order and class certification.
Mr. Paulcin, who has been incarcerated for 20 years, tells the
Court that he is in threat of imminent death or great bodily harm
and will suffer substantial irrevocable harm if his motion for
extraordinary relief and class certification is not granted.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zEVrNkP8
* Supreme Court Made it Easier for Corps. to Fight Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Paulasaug, writing for Pacific Standard, reports that from
the 1970s to the early '80s, the military dictatorship controlling
Argentina tried to maintain its grip on power through the
elimination of left-wing political dissidents and guerrilla
fighters. The state of chaos came to be known as "the Dirty War."
While hard numbers are impossible to confirm, it's believed that
nearly 30,000 people "disappeared" during the war.
One particularly grisly event took place in the Mercedes-Benz
plant in the city of Gonzalez Catan, where 22 labor leaders were
captured, tortured, and murdered. In 2004, after decades of
investigations, the family members of those killed put together a
class action lawsuit against Daimler AG, the German manufacturer
that owns Mercedes-Benz, for the corporation's alleged involvement
in the murders. It was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.
What does a case involving a German car manufacturer collaborating
with the Argentinian government in the 1970s have to do with
Northern California?
It's actually not that strange for a case involving foreign
governments and corporations to be heard in the U.S. Since 1980,
the Alien Tort Statute has been interpreted in a broad enough way
that it allows cases involving egregious human rights violations
to be heard in the U.S., as long as the corporations have ties
here. (Most, at the very least, have an American office, which
tends to satisfy the requirement.) But why Northern California
specifically?
In a 2012 survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, lawyers
representing corporations voted it "the least fair and reasonable"
in its treatment of class action lawsuits. Reasons included how
the state assessed damages and what evidence was admissible in
court. It makes sense to assume, then, that lawyers on the
opposing side feel the opposite way; if a class action suit
against a corporation could be heard in California, plaintiffs'
attorneys want to make sure it is.
This was the core question in the 2014 Supreme Court case Daimler
AG v. Bauman.
What does a case involving a german car manufacturer collaborating
with the Argentinian government in the 1970s have to do with
northern California?
It was the end of a long road that began with the 2004 suit (in
which a district judge said the trial couldn't be heard in
California due to jurisdictional concerns), continued with a Ninth
Circuit appeal (that said the case could be heard in California).
But after the Supreme Court compared how Daimler communicates with
its satellite offices in California to how it communicates with
its other offices around the globe, the court decided, in an 9-0
decision, that the corporation was not "at home" in California.
The case would not be heard in the state.
Subsequent rulings based on that precedent have continued the
trend of limiting where class actions can be heard, most notably
in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court, in which the Supreme
Court decided (8-1) that a class action involving several hundred
individuals from 33 states (including 86 California residents)
couldn't be heard in California. As the lone dissenter, Justice
Sonia Sotomayer, noted:
I fear the consequences of the majority's decision today will be
substantial. Even absent a rigid requirement that a defendant's
in-state conduct must actually cause a plaintiff claim, the upshot
of today's opinion is that plaintiffs cannot join their claims
together and sue a defendant in a State in which only some of them
have been injured. That rule is likely to have consequences far
beyond this case.
These cases -- along with other rulings, like Walden v. Fiore, and
Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court -- have
effectively ended class action plaintiffs' ability to consider a
range of venues where their cases can be heard, known somewhat
derisively as "forum shopping." Lawsuits against foreign companies
for atrocities that took place on foreign soil will no longer be
allowed, ending the U.S.'s role as "World Human Rights Court."
Perhaps more importantly, there will likely be a cooling effect on
class actions filed by Americans against American corporations.
Not only will the pool of plaintiffs become fragmented by more
strictly enforced state lines, but corporations will get to have
cases brought against them heard in the states where they are
based.
"Class actions will be pressured into smaller actions," says Scott
Dodson, the associate dean at the University of California-
Hastings College of the Law. "This is a huge advantage to
corporate defendants, because they either command home-court
advantage or force plaintiffs to disaggregate their class
actions."
The "home-court advantage" Dodson mentions is easy to grasp.
There's a benefit to a corporation having a case heard in its home
state; after all, its attorneys likely know the state's laws and
courts better than the opposing side. But the Supreme Court
rulings are also likely to limit the scope of class action suits
to merely one state, as opposed to nation-wide actions.
"For plaintiffs who either don't want to, or can't, file in the
defendant's home state, the safest [route] would be state-specific
actions," Dodson says. "That's particularly damaging to class
actions in which the defendant's conduct affects plaintiffs across
the nation in a uniform and consistent way."
This will be more costly to plaintiffs (because they won't be able
to pool resources with others), more costly to the court system
(because it will have more cases to hear), and less costly to
corporations (the cases brought against them will be smaller, and,
as such, demand smaller payouts). The end result is that corporate
actions are less likely to be held in check by the civil court
system.
"[Corporate defendants] are likely to face fewer claimants and
less liability," says Dodson, "while consumers -- especially those
with low damages -- will have lost an important and powerful tool
for vindication." [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 * * *