/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170919.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 19, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 185 Headlines AAA SUPER: Violates Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Brown Says ABNS GROUP: "Holmes" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages AETNA INC: Faces "Beckett" Class Suit in E.D. Penn. ASJ CONSTRUCTION: Workers Class Conditionally Certified BEHR PROCESS: "Cole" Suit Seeks Damages for Defective Product BMW AG: Faces "Kotha" Anti-trust Class Action in Michigan BON SECOURS: "Barrett" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages BONNIER CORP: Friske Seeks Certification of Settlement Class BRECKSVILLE, OH: Summary Dismissal of "McNair" Affirmed BROWN & BROWN: Faces "Camacho" Suit in E.D. of New York CALVIN KLEIN: "Arcos" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime CAPITAL ADVANCE: Redman's Bid to Certify Denied w/o Prejudice CENERGY INT'L: Faces "Doiron" Suit in W.D. of Pennsylvania CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Robinson Moves to Certify Class & 5 Subclasses CHICAGO, IL: 7th Cir. Affirms Judgment Against Class CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Bid to Certify Class in "Levine" Dropped CONTRACT SWEEPERS: "Steffen" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class DIRECT DIGITAL: Judge OKs $4.5 Million Deal to End Class Action DIRECT ENERGY: Sevugan Sues over Deceptive Pricing DIRECTV LLC: Flynn Seeks to Certify Class of Conn. MDU Landlords DR. REDDY'S LAB: "Critchley" Sues Over Share Price Drop DR REDDY'S: Oct. 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Hensley" Suit in Eastern District of Penn. EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Kalmick" Suit over Data Theft EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Scott" Suit over Data Breach EQUIFAX INC: Safirstein Metcalf Files Class Action EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Torrey" Suit over Data Breach EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Jakob" Suit in E.D. of Wisconsin EXTRAORDINARY DESIGN: "Naveira" Suit Alleges Sexual Harassment FLORIDA, USA: Prunty's Bid for Class Certification Stricken FORD MOTOR: Case Mngt Conference in "Baranco" Moved to Nov. 21 FUSION BRANDS: Faces "Gonzales" Suit in C.D. of California G4S SECURE: "Abumohor" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages GC SERVICES: Faces "Mullins" Suit in C.D. of California GHHS HEALTHCARE: "Bowden" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime GUARDIAN LIVING: Williams Seeks to Certify Direct Care Class HEALTH CARE: 7th Cir. Reverses "Priddy" Class Certification HELIX ENERGY: "Shirey" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA HSN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Suit HUMANA AT HOME: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Poggi" Suit HUNTLEIGH USA: Thomas Moves to Certify Class of Service Agents MIDLAND FUNDING: Class Certification Sought in "Wheeler" Suit MIDWAY OILFIELD: Flores Moves to Certify Class of Tool Pushers INTERSTATE WAREHOUSING: Bid to Certify Settlement Class Sought MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Moodie May Renew Bid to Certify by October 16 IYOGI INC: Sued by "Bell" for Harassing Telemarketing Calls JAUREGUI & LINDSEY: Faces "Blackmon" Suit in M.D. of Alabama KAIGLER & ASSOCIATES: Allstate Has No Duty to Indemnify KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "Shonkwiler" Suit over Unsolicited Calls KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Chacon's Bid to Certify Cont'd; Hearing Nov. 15 PATRIOT DRILLING: Class Certification Sought in "Serrette" Suit PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Moves for Final OK of $6MM Brown Settlement KRAFT BISTRO: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under FLSA KXU INC: Taiwanese Restaurant Underpays Staff, "Chen" Suit Says MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Wyckoff" MARRONE BIO: Court Orders 60-Day Stay of Situations Fund Suit MDL 2284: Arborist Panel's Denial of "Gaffey" Appeal Affirmed MDL 2284: Court Affirms Arborist Panel Denial of "Lingles" Appeal MDL 2284: Court Denies J. Heusinkveld's Appeal MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Votta" and "Fair" Suits over Roundup NIKKO HIBACHI: Sushi Resto Underpays Staff, "Yang" Suit Claims NORTH TEXAS MAINTENANCE: "Smith" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay PARAMOUNT EQUITY: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Titus" Denied PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Settles Production Assistant Defecation CA PAY CAR: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Lester" PETCO ANIMAL: "Wagner" Transferred to Southern District of Calif. PHILIPPE NORTH: Court Denies Approval of Preliminary Settlement POWERBLOCK INC: Cohen Files Class Action Over Defective Dumbbells PROGRESSIVE CORP: Faces "Camacho" Suit in E.D. of New York REGENCE BLUESHIELD: "A.Z." Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage ROCKIT RANCH: Bernal Seeks to Stop Collection of Biometric Info RSH LIQUIDATING: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Toscano" SHAPIRO VAN: "Brown" Suit Disputes Collection Letter SHORETEL INC: "Herrera" Suit Seeks to Halt Merger Deal with Mitel SHOWTIME NETWORKS: "Mallh" Sues Over Bad Pay-Per-View Live Stream SUSHI MARU: "Chun" Alleges Retaliation for Whistle-Blowing STEPHEN FRENZ: Lawsuit Blocks Sale of Apartment Buildings SUBWAY: Sued for Improperly Collecting Soft Drink Tax TACI INVESTMENTS: "Hankton" Suit Seeks to Certify Managers Class TECHNOLOGICAL MEDICAL: "Botelho" Suit Seeks to Certify Class TIME WARNER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Suvino" TOP SHIPS: Oct. 23 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set TRIAD OF ALABAMA: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Partly Denied TURN INC: Plaintiffs' Litigation Strategy Avoids Arbitration U.S. TOBACCO: Court Preliminarily Certifies Settlement Class VITAMIN SHOPPE: "Aguilar" Sues Over Share Price Drop WELLS FARGO: "Conklin" Suit Hits Additional Insurance Premiums VOLKSWAGEN AG: Blevins Sues Over Anti-trust Activities WELK RESORT: Experian Directed to File Supplemental Explanation WELLS FARGO: Boone Files RICO Class Action in Calif. ********* AAA SUPER: Violates Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Brown Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- VIRGIL E. BROWN d.b.a VIRGIL E. BROWN INSURANCE, for himself and on behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AAA SUPER PAVING AND SEAL COATING, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 01917-CAB (N.D. Ohio, Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to recover actual damages against Defendant or $500.00 in statutory damages, whichever is greater, as a result of the Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, after reviewing the fax on that date, the Plaintiff's employee had to spend unwanted time to not only review the fax but also caused the Plaintiff to suffer the added expense of printing out the fax, costing the Plaintiff the cost of the paper and use of ink toner in preparing the print. In addition to the monetary damages of the staff time, and the paper/ink cost, the Plaintiff had to spend time away from his business to contact Plaintiff's counsel to discuss receiving this unwarranted on unnecessary fax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc E. Dann, Esq. Brian D Flick, Esq. DANNLAW P.O. Box 6031040 Cleveland, OH 44103 Telephone: (216) 373 0539 Facsimile: (216) 373 0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com ABNS GROUP: "Holmes" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages ---------------------------------------------------------- Kesha Holmes, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABNS Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-61717 (S.D. Fla., August 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked as a customer service representative for the Defendant, handling phone interviews with prospective college students. Holmes regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week without overtime pay, and she was only paid for her time logged on the phone system and not their actual hours worked. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Celler, Esq. Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7450 Griffin Rd. #230 Davie, FL 33314, USA Tel: (866) 344-9243 Fax: (954) 337-2771 Email: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com AETNA INC: Faces "Beckett" Class Suit in E.D. Penn. --------------------------------------------------- Andrew Beckett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aetna, Inc., Aetna Life Insurance Company, Aetna Specialty Pharmacy, LLC, and DOE Vendor, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03864, (E.D. Pa., August 28, 2017), seeks damages, including statutory and/or punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses and other and further relief under the Pennsylvania Confidentiality of HIV-Related Information Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Aetna caters to HIV patients and mail-orders their HIV medicines. However, HIV medication prescriptions are sent in an opaque envelope with a large transparent glassine window clearly indicating the name of the patient, thus failing to respect the privacy rights of people who are taking HIV-medications, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, RC. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net cfundora@bm.net - and - Shanon J. Carsma, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-4656 Email: Escarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John Albanese, Esq. 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Tel: (612) 594-5933 Email: emdrake@bm.net jalbanese@bm.net - and - Ronda B. Goldfein, Esq. Adrian M. Lowe, Esq. AIDS LAW PROJECT OF PENNSYLVANIA 121 l Chestnut Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Email: goldfein@aidslawpa.org alowe@aidslawpa.org Tel: (215) 587-9377 - and - Sally Friedman, Esq. Monica Welby, Esq. Karla Lopez, Esq. LEGAL ACTION CENTER 225 Varick Street New York, NY 10014 Email: sfriedman@lac.org mwelby@lac.org Tel: (212) 243-1313 ASJ CONSTRUCTION: Workers Class Conditionally Certified ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled LIDIO LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ASJ CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC and ALFONSO SANCHEZ, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 02241-SM-KWR (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of: "all individuals who worked or are working performing manual labor for ASJ Construction Group, LLC or indirectly through a labor staffing company during the previous three years, and who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 207 and who did not receive full overtime compensation"; 2. approving Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent Form and its Spanish translation; 3. directing Defendants to provide to Plaintiff's counsel the following information: (a) the names of the Class Members and the dates they performed services for Defendants; and (b) each Class Member's current/last known mailing address ("Class List") within 14 days of this Order; 4. directing Plaintiff's counsel to mail the approved Notice and Consent Form to all persons on the Class List within 30 days of this Order; and 5. directing Class Members to file their Consent opting into this lawsuit as plaintiffs within 90 days from the date of the initial mailing of the Notice. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CyR10EcC BEHR PROCESS: "Cole" Suit Seeks Damages for Defective Product ------------------------------------------------------------- Martha Cole and Wayne Honsberger, individually and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Behr Process Corp., Behr Paint Corp., Masco Corp., The Home Depot, Inc., And Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 05052, (E.D. N.Y., August 25, 2017), seeks treble damages and/or any other form of monetary relief provided by law for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, restitution, disgorgement or other equitable relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit, including expert witness fees and such other and further relief under New York consumer protection laws. Behr released a new patio and deck product exclusively through Home Depot, branded as "DeckOver" a supposedly durable coating that could repair decks by filling in cracks and stopping splinters. Plaintiff alleges that within mere months of application, DeckOver begins to flake, peel and separate from deck and concrete surfaces. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Gil-Montllor, Esq. Matthew Prewitt, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202)789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 Email: pgil-montllors@cuneolaw.com mprewitt@cuneolaw.com - and - Charles LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202)789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 Email: charles@cuneolaw.com - and - Michael McShane, Esq. S. Clinton Woods, Esq. Ling Y. Kuang, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue. Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 Email: mmcshane@audetlaw.com cwoods@audetlaw.com lkuang@audetlaw.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697 Telephone: (877) 882-1011 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 Email: CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. HALUNEN LAW 80 South 8th Street IDS Center, Suite 1650 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 548-5286 Facsimile: (612) 605-4099 Email: weiner@halunenlaw.com BMW AG: Faces "Kotha" Anti-trust Class Action in Michigan --------------------------------------------------------- Kashivishnatha Kotha, Irving Cohen, Christopher Kurek, And Dean Werner, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BMW AG, BMW North America, LLC, Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi Of America, Inc., Audi Of America, LLC, DR. ING. H.C.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars Of North America, Inc., Bentley Motors Limited, Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12836, (E.D. Mich., August 28, 2017), seeks redress for antitrust violations under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Defendants have reportedly been secretly colluding with each other since the 1990s on matters ranging from car development, gasoline engines, diesel engines, brakes, transmissions, gearboxes, choices of suppliers, emissions controls and even prices for parts. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq. Mark E. Rath, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Tel: (952) 941-4005 Fax: (952) 941-2337 Emails: rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com mrath@hjlawfirm.com - and - Michael Cashman, Esq. Anne T. Regan, Esq. Nicholas S. Kuhlmann, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Tel: (952) 941-4005 Fax: (952) 941-2337 Email: mcashman@hjlawfirm.com aregan@hjlawfirm.com nkuhlmann@hjlawfirm.com - and - ROXANNE CONLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Roxanne Barton Conlin, Esq. 3721 S.W. 61st St., Ste. C Des Moines, IA 50321 Tel: (515) 283-1111 Fax: (515) 282-0477 Email: roxlaw@aol.com BON SECOURS: "Barrett" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages --------------------------------------------------- Andrew Barrett and Richard Collier, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bon Secours St. Francis Xavier Hospital Inc. and Care Alliance Health Services Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02298, (D.N.J., August 28, 2017), seeks unpaid back wages at the applicable overtime rates, liquidated damages, front-pay, back-pay, redress for emotional distress, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs/disbursements of prosecuting this case, plus post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and all such further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate a healthcare network consisting of Roper Hospital, Bon Secours St. Francis Hospital and Roper St. Francis Hospital. It is comprised of 657-bed health system, more than 90 facilities including doctors' offices. Plaintiffs were Data Center Technicians at the Defendants' Data Center located at Palmetto Commerce Parkway in Charleston, South Carolina. They claim to have regularly worked through their meal breaks during emergencies. They were terminated when they took a legitimate break without clocking out. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW 1037-D Chuck Dawley Blvd, Suite 104 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Tel: (800) 385-8160 (Phone & Fax) Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net BONNIER CORP: Friske Seeks Certification of Settlement Class ------------------------------------------------------------ Rebecca Friske moves the Court for an order certifying the action captioned REBECCA FRISKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BONNIER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-12799-DML-EAS (E.D. Mich.), as a class action, for settlement purposes only. The settlement class is defined as: "all Michigan residents who received one or more subscriptions to a magazine published by Bonnier between July 28, 2010 and the date of Preliminary Approval of the Agreement, and who did not purchase such subscriptions through a Third-Party Subscription Agent." Ms. Friske also asks that she be appointed class representative and that her counsel, Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP and the Law Offices of Daniel O. Myers, be appointed as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JxasK7nD The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILEPLA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15232 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com - and - Daniel Myers, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL O. MYERS 818 Red Drive, Suite 210 Traverse City, MI 49684 Telephone: (800) 340-8050 E-mail: dmyers@domlawoffice.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel T. Stabile, Esq. SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 415-9063 Facsimile: (305) 347-7714 E-mail: dstabile@shutts.com - and - John J. Gillooly, Esq. GARAN LUCOW 1155 Brewery Park Blvd., Suite 200 Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 446-5501 E-mail: jgillooly@garanlucow.com BRECKSVILLE, OH: Summary Dismissal of "McNair" Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, issued an Opinion affirming the Judgment of the trial court granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned EBEN O. McNAIR, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BRECKSVILLE, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees, No. 104706 (Ohio App.). Plaintiff-appellant, Eben O. McNair, IV, appeals the trial court's grant of motions for judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants-appellees Virginia Price (Price), Regional Income Tax Agency (RITA) and the city of Brecksville (Brecksville), rejecting McNair's challenge that a city tax ordinance is unlawful. Meeting of the Brecksville City Council, Ordinance 4890, was introduced, amending Section 1519.02 of the Taxation Code, to reduce the allowable Municipal Income Tax Credit for a limited period of time and declaring an "emergency" (Ordinance). The Ordinance reduced the tax credit for Brecksville residents who were paying employment taxes on income earned in their city of employment from 100 percent to 87.50 percent. The stated purpose of the Ordinance is to effectively fund the necessary functions of the city of Brecksville. McNair filed a taxpayer's action for declaratory judgment and class action relief against Brecksville, Price, and RITA. McNair sought Civ.R. 23 class certification based on commonality of law and fact as to whether the Ordinance was lawfully enacted, whether the underlying tax may be lawfully collected, and as to any affirmative defenses that may be asserted by appellees. Brecksville and Price filed a Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings (motion) that was opposed by McNair. Dispositive motions and class certification briefs. The court granted the motion without opinion. McNair's motion for reconsideration was denied. RITA also filed a motion that was granted, on the ground that the judgment for Brecksville and Price resolved all claims against RITA. McNair appeals. McNair advances two assignments of error: 1. The trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Brecksville and Price. 2. The trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by RITA. Validity of Ordinance Article IV, Section 11, of the Charter provides in part: "Each ordinance or resolution providing for an annual tax levy and any emergency ordinance necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health or safety, shall take effect, unless a later date be specified therein, upon its approval by the Mayor, or upon the expiration of the time within which it may be vetoed by the Mayor, or upon its passage after veto by the Mayor. Each emergency measure shall contain a statement of the necessity for such emergency action, and shall require the affirmative vote of five (5) members of Council for its enactment." The court of appeals finds that the Brecksville Ordinance was validly enacted as an ordinance. While, on its face, the Ordinance states that it is an emergency measure, the Ordinance was read three times at three meetings and was approved by a vote of four council members in compliance with the requirements for nonemergency legislation pursuant to Article IV, Section 10 of the Charter. While McNair is correct that Article IV, Section 11 of the Charter requires a super-majority vote for emergency measures, there is no requirement for nonemergency measures, the court of appeals pointed out. The stated purpose of the Ordinance is to raise funds for municipal operations by reducing the income tax credit, thus constituting an annual tax levy wholly within Brecksville's municipal powers. Municipalities have within their general power of taxation the power to tax incomes, the court held. The court of appeals agreed with the trial court's determination that McNair is unable to prove a set of facts supporting his claim that would result in entitlement to relief "after construing all material allegations in the complaint, along with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in favor of the nonmoving party." Further, as the result of the court of appeals' determination that the Ordinance was validly enacted, the trial court's determination as to RITA is also affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' August 31, 2017 Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8hl9z8ufrom Leagle.com. Anand N. Misra, The Misra Law Firm, L.L.C., 3659 Green Road, Suite 100, Cleveland, Ohio 44122; Robert S. Belovich, 9100 South Hills Road, Suite 325, Broadview Heights, Ohio 44147., Attorney for Appellant. Shana Samson -- ssamson@mhglegal.com -- Mark B. Marong -- mmarong@mhglegal.com -- David J. Matty -- dmatty@mhglegal.com -- Matty Henrikson & Greve L.L.C., 55 Public Square, Suite 1775, Cleveland, Ohio 44113., Attorney for Appellees. Mark B. Marong, David J. Matty, Matty Henrikson & Greve L.L.C., 55 Public Square, Suite 1775, Cleveland, Ohio 44113., for Virginia Price. Amy L. Arrighi, Amber E. Greenleaf Duber, Regional Income Tax Agency, P.O. Box 470537, Broadview Heights, Ohio 44147 for Regional Income Tax Agency. BROWN & BROWN: Faces "Camacho" Suit in E.D. of New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brown & Brown of New York, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Brown & Brown of New York, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05391-SJ-PK (E.D.N.Y., September 14, 2017). Brown & Brown of New York, Inc is engaged in the insurance business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet N. Esagoff, Esq. Esagoff Law Group, P.C. 10 Bond Street Great Neck, NY 11021 Tel: (516) 417-7737 Fax: (516) 543-0123 Email: janet@esagoff.com - and - Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. Gottlieb& Associates 150 East 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Gottlieb & Associates 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com CALVIN KLEIN: "Arcos" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------ Sascha Arcos, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Calvin Klein Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06510 (S.D. N.Y., August 25, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Minimum Wage Act. Defendant was engaged in the clothing and apparel business across the United States and internationally. Arcos was employed by Calvin Klein as a manual worker, cleaning and organizing closets, lifting boxes, packing and unpacking garments, data entry and answering phones. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Tel: (718) 740-1000 Fax: (718) 740-2000 Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com CAPITAL ADVANCE: Redman's Bid to Certify Denied w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on August 29, 2017, in the case titled Scott D.H. Redman, et al. v. Capital Advance Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-04380 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable John Robert Blakey. The minute entry states that: -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class and Plaintiff's motion for sanctions are denied without prejudice; -- Status hearing is set for October 4, 2017, at 9:45 a.m., in Courtroom 1203; and -- Parties wishing to appear by telephone should contact the Courtroom Deputy on or before noon on October 3, 2017, to arrange for a telephonic appearance. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3DFX0MAw CENERGY INT'L: Faces "Doiron" Suit in W.D. of Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cenergy International Services, LLC. The case is styled as Charles Doiron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cenergy International Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01203-LPL (W.D. Penn., September 14, 2017). Cenergy International Services, LLC provides staffing, payroll, vendor management, inspection, aviation logistics, and safety services to energy, engineering, construction, aerospace and defense, shipbuilding, and power and utility sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. Goodrich & Geist, P.C. 3634 California Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Tel: (412) 766-1455 Fax: (412) 766-0300 Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Robinson Moves to Certify Class & 5 Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled SHAON ROBINSON, SEAN CLARK on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE, INC., a Delaware corporation, THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE WEST COAST, LLC, a California limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:15-cv-05421-RS (N.D. Cal.), move for an order certifying the class claims, appointing them as Class representatives, and appointing Hoffman Employment Lawyers as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs filed this class action against their employers alleging a variety of wage and hour violations that occurred during their employment, as well as individual discrimination and harassment claims for Plaintiff Shaon Robinson. They bring the class action on behalf of all persons employed by Chefs', who worked as delivery drivers in California on or after October 26, 2011, to the present. The proposed class and subclasses are: * The Reimbursement Class: All employees of Chefs' who worked as delivery drivers in California from October 26, 2011, until judgment is entered. * The Meal Period Subclass: All employees of Chefs' who worked as delivery drivers in California from June 25, 2014, until judgment is entered. * The Rest Period Subclass: All employees of Chefs' who worked as delivery drivers in California from June 25, 2014, until judgment is entered. * The Off-The-Clock Subclass: All employees of Chefs' who worked as delivery drivers in California from June 25, 2014, until judgment is entered. * The Wage Statement Subclass: All employees of Chefs' who worked as delivery drivers in California from October 26, 2014, until judgment is entered and who are members of any of the following: Meal Period, Rest Period, or Unpaid Wages/Overtime Wages Subclass. * The Waiting Time Penalty Subclass: All employees of Chefs' who worked as delivery drivers in California from June 25, 2014, until judgment is entered, whose employment with Chefs' has terminated, and who are members of any of the following: Meal Period, Rest Period, or Unpaid Wages/Overtime Wages Subclass. The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court order the parties to meet and confer to develop a proposed form of Notice to be sent to the Class Members that reflects the Court's decision, including procedures. The Court will commence a hearing on November 30, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5LlPHkVq The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Hoffman, Esq. Leonard Emma, Esq. Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq. Cody Stroman, Esq. HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 580 California Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 362-1111 Facsimile: (415) 362-1112 E-mail: mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com lemma@employment-lawyers.com silg@employment-lawyers.com cstroman@employment-lawyers.com CHICAGO, IL: 7th Cir. Affirms Judgment Against Class ---------------------------------------------------- Gregory Mersol, Esq., at Baker & Hostetler, in an article for Lexology, wrote that there certainly has been no shortage of publicity about the potential for wage and hour claims for time spent by hourly employees using smartphones or other electronic devices for work while off duty. Many employers have tried to address the need to pay for such time, and to avoid litigation, by promulgating procedures for such employees to record and be paid for the hours they work on mobile devices. That should be the end of it, but litigation continues when employees, for their own reasons, choose not to follow those procedures or to put in for the additional time. But is the employer responsible for that? That was the issue presented in Allen v. City of Chicago, Case No. 16-1029 (7th Cir. Aug. 3, 2017). In that case, the city of Chicago apparently provided BlackBerry devices for officers working in its organized crime division. Incidentally, the case was filed in 2010, when such devices were more common -- the opinion does not reflect whether the falloff in the popularity of that product resulted in different mobile devices being provided. Officers who used the BlackBerrys when off duty, a frequent occurrence due to the nature of their work, could submit "time due slips" to their supervisors to be paid for that time. In many cases, however, the officers simply did not submit those slips and thus were never paid for the time they had spent on their mobile devices during off hours. As the trial court found, while supervisors could in theory cross-check the work done by the officers with their time slips to find instances where work was done but not compensated, doing so was largely impractical. Following a six-day bench trial, the trial court entered judgment against the class. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It noted that the police department had a reasonable system in place for the submission of time and was not responsible if the officers chose not to use it. It distinguished the case from instances in which employees might have been discouraged from submitting time or where no procedure was in place. It rejected the notion that the department's pressure on supervisors to reduce overtime or the concern of officers about the "culture" constituted a violation. The court found that the city's policies were not airtight, and it was particularly concerned about certain of the department's policies that were not FLSA-compliant, but the case demonstrates that having a reasonable procedure can provide a defense for an employer in off-the-clock cases. One very frustrating aspect of this case is that there was no question that the officers could simply have submitted the slips and received overtime. And yet it took seven years, no doubt extensive class briefing, an expensive trial and an appeal to resolve the case against a group of employees who likely had the support of both the city and the public. While the remark attributed to then-Mayor Richard M. Daley when the suit was filed that the suit was "silliness" may have been too strong, the time, energy and money expended to resolve an issue that could easily have been avoided reflects difficulties the courts have had in resolving wage and hour class and collective actions. The bottom line: An employer may have to take a class action case to trial to prove it, but a reasonable, well-written policy to enter time for off-the-clock work may prove to be a defense even in class or collective action litigation. [GN] CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Bid to Certify Class in "Levine" Dropped -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned PETER LEVINE, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv- 11099-MLW (D. Mass.), the Court entered an order withdrawing Plaintiffs' motion to certify class with prejudice. The Court said, "Counsel for the parties shall confer and, by September 26, 2017, report whether they have reached an agreement to resolve each plaintiffs' individual claims or request a brief extension of time to do so. This case is otherwise Stayed." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JV1VjKen CONTRACT SWEEPERS: "Steffen" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Steffen, et al. for himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Contract Sweepers & Equipment Co., Case No. 2:17-cv-00579-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying a collective FLSA class; 2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to: "all current and former hourly, non-exempt equipment operators of Defendant working at the CSE-Columbus office who during the previous three years worked over forty hours in any workweek but were not properly compensated for all of their overtime hours worked under the FLSA because of Defendant's automatic meal deduction policy"; and 3. requiring Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the full names, last-known residential address(es), last- known e-mail address(es), and dates of employment of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendant at any time from three years preceding the filing of the instant motion through the present. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z4o6AKb9 The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, Ohio 43207 Telephone: (614) 949 1181 Facsimile: (614) 386 9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Peter A. Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC PO Box 215 Amlin, Ohio 43002 Telephone: (614) 787 4878 Facsimile: (614) 923 7369 E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com DIRECT DIGITAL: Judge OKs $4.5 Million Deal to End Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports a federal judge in Chicago has signed off on a $4.5 million settlement in a class action regarding the effectiveness of dietary supplement Instaflex, with attorneys slated to receive nearly $1.5 million of the fund. Charles R. Norgle Sr. entered his final order on Sept. 7 in the dispute between Vince Mullins and Direct Digital LLC. Mullins filed his complaint in 2013, alleging false advertising of Instaflex Joint Support, and on Sept. 30, 2014, Norgle granted Mullins' motion for class certification. On July 28, 2015, the Seventh Circuit Appeals Court affirmed Norgle's class certification order, and in February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Direct Digital's request for a review. Norgle granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement on March 9, 2017. Under those terms, Direct Digital would stop using some of the allegedly misleading language and provide cash refunds of $15 for each bottle of Instaflex purchased, up to a maximum of seven bottles, or $105. The $7 per bottle settlement fee is subject to proration up or down should the amount of claims warrant adjustment. Direct Digital will no longer market Instaflex, or any other joint health product containing glucoasmine sulfate, by claiming it provides joint support; that it was created by a research group or a Cambridge research group; that it was specially formulated; that it is the result of a revolutionary formula; or indicate it contains an exclusive compound. It also will not say the product is capable of supporting, fixing, mending, reconditioning, rehabilitating, increasing, developing, building, maintaining, strengthening, repairing, rebuilding, renewing, regrowing, adding, regenerating or rejuvenating cartilage, nor will Direct Digital say Instaflex supports, maintains or improves joint health. According to the Aug. 3 settlement motion, more than 79,000 putative class members submitted claims. No class member objected to the settlement and only three people sought exclusion. Class members do not have to provide proof of purchase; they only need to submit, online or through the mail, a claim form specifying the number of Instaflex bottles they purchased. Direct Digital will establish a $4.5 million settlement fund. Of that, $400,000 is set aside for notice and administration costs, with the understanding the company will be obligated to cover any overages in those categories. Mullins will get a $5,000 incentive award for his role as lead plaintiff, and his attorneys will collect about $1.49 million. Mullins was represented by Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint P.C., of Phoenix; Siprut P.C., of Chicago; Levin Sedran Berman P.C., of Philadelphia; and Boodell & Domanskis LLC, of Chicago. In his settlement motion, Mullins noted Direct Digital is "a closely held LLC that started up only about eight years ago." The parties conducted lengthy negotiations, including a mediation hearing with retired Judge Wayne R. Andersen, who filed a document in support of the settlement. Mullins brought his original claims under several state consumer protection acts. The 2014 certification created consumer classes in California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington. Mullins said combined number of affected customers is about 1.6 million. Direct Digital was represented by the firms of Venable LLP, of Washington, D.C., and Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit, of Mundelein. [GN] DIRECT ENERGY: Sevugan Sues over Deceptive Pricing -------------------------------------------------- CHETTY SEVUGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06569 (N.D. Ill., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to redress deceptive pricing practices of Direct Energy that have caused thousands of Illinois consumers to pay considerably more for their electricity than they should otherwise have paid. According to the complaint, Direct Energy has taken advantage of the deregulation of the retail natural gas and electricity market in Illinois by luring consumers into switching energy suppliers with false promises that it offers market based variable rates for natural gas and electricity. Direct Energy lures consumers into switching by offering a teaser rate that is lower than local utilities' rates for electricity supply. When the teaser rate expires after a couple of months, Defendant switches customers to a variable rate, which it represents reflects "market-related factors." Direct Energy's representations are deceptive. In fact, Direct Energy's variable rates are substantially higher than those otherwise available in the energy market, and are not reflective of the market factors on which Direct Energy purports to base its variable rates. Direct Energy's business model is simple: after the teaser rate expires, it charges exorbitant rates that are not based on market-related factors, namely the rates that other retailers and energy customers' incumbent utility providers charge for natural gas and electricity and wholesale costs. As a result, Illinois consumers are being fleeced millions of dollars in exorbitant charges for energy. Direct Energy offers electricity, natural gas and home services in TX, PA, OH, IL, MA, and many other locations in the US and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. Burke, Esq. Jamie E. Weiss, Esq. Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq. QUANTUM LEGAL LLC 513 Central Avenue, Suite 300 Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone: (847) 433 4500 - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238 1700 DIRECTV LLC: Flynn Seeks to Certify Class of Conn. MDU Landlords ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JEAN M. FLYNN and JAMES E. STEAD, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DIRECTV, LLC and MAS TEC, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-01053-JAM (D. Conn.), move for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The class consists of: All persons and/or entities ("Landlords") that own and lease residential multiple dwelling units ("MDU's") in the State of Connecticut, upon which Defendants, by their agents, servants and/or employees have, on at least one occasion during the applicable statutory period, without first receiving prior written Landlord authorization and/or permission, installed DIRECTV satellite dish model Ka/Ku, on the roof of said MDU. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zyybgTgG The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce E. Newman, Esq. BROWN PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP 747 Stafford Avenue Bristol, CT 0601 Telephone: (860) 583-520 Facsimile: (860) 589-5780 E-mail: bnewman@bpslawyers.com - and - Steven Bennett Blau, Esq. Shelly A. Leonard, Esq. BLAU, LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC 23 Green Street, Suite 303 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 458-1010 E-mail: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com Defendant Directv, LLC, is represented by: Nicholas Norton Ouellette, Esq. MATTHEW DALLAS GORDON, LLC 836 Farmington Avenue, Suite 221A West Hartford, CT 06119 Telephone: (860) 523-0471 - and - Andrew Z. Edelstein, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Telephone: (213) 229-5156 Facsimile: (213) 625-0248 E-mail: aedelstein@mayerbrown.com Defendant MasTec, Inc., is represented by: Scott S. Orenstein, Esq. GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP 100 Pearl Street, Suite 1100 Hartford, CT 06103-4506 Telephone: (860) 760-3317 Facsimile: (860) 760-3301 E-mail: sorenstein@goldbergsegalla.com - and - Daniel B. Moar, Esq. Troy Bataille, Esq. GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP 665 Main Street, Suite 400 Buffalo, NY 14203-1425 Telephone: (716) 566-5400 Facsimile: (716) 566-5401 E-mail: dmoar@goldbergsegalla.com tbataille@goldbergsegalla.com DR. REDDY'S LAB: "Critchley" Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------- Regina Critchley, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited, G.V. Prasad and Saumen Chakraborty, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-06436, (D. N.J., August 25, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Dr. Reddy's is an integrated pharmaceutical company which operates in three segments: global genetics, pharmaceutical services and active ingredients and proprietary products. The Regulatory Authority of Germany sent notice to Dr. Reddy's wholly-owned subsidiary in Germany, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, that one of the Company's plants lost its Good Manufacturing Practices compliance certificate after its recent inspection of the plant thus is prohibited from making any further dispatch to the European Union until the next inspection. On this news, shares of Dr. Reddy fell $1.97 per share or approximately 6% from its previous closing price to close at $30.33 per share on August 10, 2017, damaging investors including the Plaintiff. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com DR REDDY'S: Oct. 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of investors who purchased Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. ("Dr. Reddy's") (NYSE:RDY) securities between June 17, 2015, and August 10, 2017. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Dr. Reddy's lacked an effective corporate quality system; and (2) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 6, 2015, Dr. Reddy's announced that it had received a warning letter issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concerning inadequate quality control standards at three of Dr. Reddy's manufacturing plants in India. Then on August 10, 2017, Dr. Reddy's disclosed that the Regierung von Oberbayern (the district government of Upper Bavaria) did not renew the good manufacturing practices compliance certificate of a manufacturing unit of Dr. Reddy's German subsidiary Betapharm Arzneimittel, located in India. If you suffered a loss in Dr. Reddy's you have until October 24, 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/dr- reddys-laboratories-ltd?wire=3. 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. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Hensley" Suit in Eastern District of Penn. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The case is styled as Barbara Hensley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv- 04105-LDD (E.D. Penn., September 14, 2017). Equifax Inc. is a global provider of information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments and consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dianne M. Nast, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 MARKET ST STE 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Tel: (215) 923-9300 Fax: (215) 923-9302 Email: dnast@nastlaw.com EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Kalmick" Suit over Data Theft ------------------------------------------------- BRUCE KALMICK, TAMMIE MARRS, and PAUL MARRS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EQUIFAX INC., the Defendant, Case No. D-1-GN-17-005025 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks monetary relief under $5,000,000 and affirmatively pleads that this case does not fall under the expedited-actions process of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169. Equifax is a company that collects and stores personal and credit information of people all across the United States. Specifically, Equifax collected personal information of the Plaintiffs by storing their social security numbers, birth dates, home addresses, driver's license information and credit card numbers. By storing extremely sensitive information, Equifax owed a legal duty to consumers like Plaintiffs to use reasonable care in protecting this information from unauthorized access by third parties. Equifax knew that failure to provide protection will result in serious harm to consumers. This harm is, but not limited to, credit harm, identity theft, credit monitoring, and replacement of credit/debit cards. In fact, Equifax has experienced breaches of personal information in 2013, 2016, and January 2017. Yet, on September 7, Equifax announced its largest breach for the first time that occurred from May 2017 to July 2017. Its database storing Plaintiffs' and other consumers' sensitive credit and personal information had been hacked by unauthorized-third parties, subjecting all affected to credit harm and identity theft (last estimated to be over 100 million people). By Equifax's purposeful delay in providing notice to consumers, Equifax prevented consumers from taking swift action in potentially limiting the damage done to the consumers affected. Despite failing to inform the millions of people affected until months after the discovery of the data breach, Equifax did not hesitate to protect its own interest. According to Bloomberg, at least three Equifax senior executives sold shares worth $1.8 million in the days following the data breach. Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul Colley, Jr., Esq. Jarrett Stone, Esq. COLLEY FIRM, P.C. 12912 Hill Country Blvd., Suite F-234 Austin, TX 78738 Telephone: (512) 477 2001 Facsimile: (512) 477 3335 E-mail: paul@colleylaw.net Jarrett@collylaw.net EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Scott" Suit over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06715 (C.D. Cal., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to recover actual damages, economic damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs as a result of Equifax's violation of the Unfair Competition Law for failing to take reasonable measures in protecting Plaintiff's and the Class Members' personally identifiable information (PII). On July 29, 2017, Equifax discovered that cybercriminals had exploited a "website application vulnerability" ("the Vulnerability") in its system and stolen the PII of over 143 million individuals (the "Data Breach"). In the period between the discovery of the Data Breach, on July 29, and the public disclosure of the breach, Equifax managers sold shares worth almost $1.8 million. After over a month had passed, Equifax publicly announced the Data Breach on September 7, upon this news the Company's stock plummeted over 6 percent. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and other Class Members will bear an immediate and heightened risk of all manners of identity theft. Equifax was negligent in taking the necessary precautions required to safeguard and protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from cybercriminals, and also breached its duty to timely and adequately disclose the Data Breach. Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Kevin F. Ruf, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. Danielle L. Manning, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201 9150 Facsimile: (310) 201 9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com EQUIFAX INC: Safirstein Metcalf Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Safirstein Metcalf LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit was filed against Equifax, Inc., relating to the recently disclosed data breach. According to reports, the data breach purportedly began in May 2017 and continued until July 29, 2017. The hackers accessed names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and driver's license numbers. The complaint alleges that Equifax was negligent in failing to protect consumer data and choosing to save money instead of spending on technical safeguards that could have stopped the cyber attack. After the market closed on September 7, 2017, Equifax announced a "cybersecurity incident potentially impacting approximately 143 million U.S. consumers. Following this news, shares of Equifax fell substantially on Sept. 7 with shares trading this afternoon at $122.68 -- down approximately 14% for the day. It was also reported that three of Equifax's officers and managers sold stock before the hack was revealed. Safirstein Metcalf LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of investors in Equifax (NYSE:EFX). If you are a Equifax shareholder and would like information, please contact Safirstein Metcalf LLP at 1-800-221-0015, or email info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com. About Safirstein Metcalf LLP Safirstein Metcalf LLP focuses its practice on shareholder rights. The law firm also practices in the areas of antitrust and consumer protection. All of the Firm's legal endeavors are rooted in its core mission: provide investor and consumer protection. [GN] EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Torrey" Suit over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA TORREY, Ohio consumer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 17604 Eastbrook Trail Chagrin Falls, OH 44023, the Plaintiffs, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES c/o Corporation Service Company, 50 W. Broad Street, Suite 1330 Columbus, OH 43215, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01922 (N.D. Ohio, Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to recover actual damages as a result of Equifax's negligent failure to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Plaintiff filed this complaint as an Ohio Class Action on behalf of the Ohio residents harmed by Equifax's failure to adequately protect their credit and personal information. The complaint requests that Equifax provide fair compensation in an amount that will ensure every consumer harmed by its data breach will not be out-of-pocket for the costs of independent third-party credit repair and monitoring services. The complaint's allegations are based on personal knowledge as to plaintiff's conduct and made on information and belief as to the acts of others. Equifax collected and stored personal and credit information from Ms. Torrey and Ohio Class members, including their social security numbers, birth dates, home addresses, driver's license information, and credit card numbers. Equifax owed a legal duty to consumers like Ms. Torrey to use reasonable care to protect their credit and personal information from unauthorized access by third parties. Equifax knew that its failure to protect Ms. Torrey's credit and personal information from unauthorized access would cause serious risks of credit harm and identity theft for years to come. On July 29, 2017, Equifax discovered that hackers had gained access to company data that potentially compromised sensitive information for 143 million American consumers. On September 7, Equifax announced for the first time that from May to July 2017, its database storing Ms. Torrey's credit and personal information had been hacked by unauthorized third parties, subjecting Ms. Torrey to credit harm and identity theft. According to the complaint, in an attempt to increase profits, Equifax negligently failed to maintain adequate technological safeguards to protect Ms. Torrey's information from unauthorized access by hackers. Equifax knew and should have known that failure to maintain adequate technological safeguards would eventually result in a massive data breach. Equifax could have and should have substantially increased the amount of money it spent to protect against cyber-attacks but chose not to. As a result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedure, the sensitive information of approximately 143 million American consumers is now in the hands of hackers. Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC is a multi-billion dollar Georgia corporation that provides credit information services to millions of businesses, governmental units, and consumers across the globe. Equifax operates through various subsidiaries including Equifax Information Services, LLC and Equifax Consumer Services, LLC aka Equifax Personal Solutions aka PSOL. Each of these entities acted as agents of Equifax or in the alternative, acted in concert with Equifax as alleged in this complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Novak, Esq. NOVAK, LLP Hoyt Block Building 700 West St. Clair Ave., Ste. 418 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Telephone: (216) 781 8700 Facsimile: (216) 781 9227 E-mail: william@novak-law.com - and - James B. Rosenthal, Esq. Joshua R. Cohen, Esq. Ellen M. Kramer, Esq. Jason R. Bristol, Esq. The Hoyt Block Building - Suite 400 700 West St. Clair Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Telephone: (216) 781 7956 Facsimile: (216) 781 8061 E-mail: jbr@crklaw.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Jakob" Suit in E.D. of Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Brigitte A. Jakob, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv- 01246 (E.D. Wis., September 14, 2017). Experian Information, an information services company, provides information, analytical, and marketing services to organizations and consumers to help manage the risk and reward of commercial and financial decisions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Soumilas, Esq. Francis & Mailmain PC 100 S Broad St-Ste 1902 Philadelphia, PA 19910 Tel: (215) 735-8600 Fax: (215) 940-8000 Email: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com EXTRAORDINARY DESIGN: "Naveira" Suit Alleges Sexual Harassment -------------------------------------------------------------- JESUS J. NAVEIRA, an Individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXTRAORDINARY DESIGN, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, EXTRAORDINARY REAL ESTATE INCORPORATED, a California Corporation, 329 NEWLAND ST 90042, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, MAXWELL VAN NORMAN, an Individual, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC675531 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks injunction prohibiting Employer Defendants from continuing with their unlawful and unfair employment practices. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff was (1) sexually harassed; (2) discriminated and harassed because of his sexual orientation and race; (3) retaliated against for refusing sexual advances and/or refusing to participate in illegal practices; and (4) wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy. The lawsuit says the Employer defendants are liable for failing to take reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Additionally, Defendants (1) trespassed into plaintiff and his fiancee's apartment; and (2) wrongfully evicted plaintiff from defendant employer's property in violation of Los Angeles rent control ordinances and a written lease. Defendant employers are also liable for several wage and hour violations (both actual and statutory damages and civil penalties) under the California Labor Code, the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") and California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. Extraordinary is in house designer business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emma D. Enriquez, Esq. BITTON & ASSOCIATES 7220 Melrose Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90046 Telephone: (310) 356 1006 FLORIDA, USA: Prunty's Bid for Class Certification Stricken ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. John E. Steele entered an opinion and order in the lawsuit captioned ROBERT R. PRUNTY v. AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE ADMINISTRATION, AHCA, ELIZABETH DUDEK, Director, THE JACK NICKLAUS MIAMI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, JNMCH, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DESOTO COUNTY & BOARD OF DIRECTORS, and ALEX SOTO, & Board of Directors, Case No. 2:17-cv-00291-UA-CM (M.D. Fla.), ruling that: 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Own Previously Filed Motion for Class Certification is granted and the Motion for Class Certification is deemed stricken; 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is stricken and will not be considered; 3. Plaintiff's Motion Seeking Class Certification is denied; 4. Plaintiff's Motion seeking disqualification or recusal is denied; 5. Plaintiff's "Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(4) Seeking to Vacate All Orders and Judgments of Federal District Court Judge John E. Steele . . ." is denied; 6. Plaintiff's "Motion filed Pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(3) and Fed. R. of Civ. P. Rule 26(g), Due to Intentional Fraud Upon the Court By Officers of the Court" is denied; and 7. Plaintiff's Motion Seeking Judicial Notice of Adjudicative and Legislative Facts is denied. The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification on July 17, 2017, seeking an appointment of class counsel and certification of a class of African-American parents of Desoto County Public School District children who filled out IEP contracts over the past 5 years. A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EODjq0fJ FORD MOTOR: Case Mngt Conference in "Baranco" Moved to Nov. 21 -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order to continue the case management conference and extend Defendant's time to response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in the case captioned DAVID BARANCO, JAMES ABBITT, HARRIET ABRUSCATO, DONALD BROWN, DANIEL CARON, ANITA FARRELL, JOHN FURNO, JAMES JENKIN, ROGER KINNUNEN, GARY KUBBER and MALISA NICOLAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; Defendants, Case No. 3:17-CV- 03580-EMC (N.D. Cal.). Defendant Ford Motor Company's response to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in the action is continued from September 1, 2017 to October 16, 2017; and the Case Management Conference set for September 21, 2017 is adjourned and reset to November 21, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yb4htxg2from Leagle.com. David Baranco, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst -- lhurst@bholaw.com -Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP. David Baranco, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf - - mds@mccunewright.com -- McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC. Malisa Nicolau, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf, McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC. James Abbitt, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf, McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC. Daniel Caron, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf, McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC. Gary Kubber, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf, McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC. Roger Kinnunen, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf, McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC. Anita Farrell, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf, McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC. Harriet Abruscato, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf, McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC. James Jenkin, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf, McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC. Donald Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf, McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC. John Furno, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf, McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Tamara Alicia Bush - - tbush@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett LLP & John Mark Thomas -- jthomas@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC. FUSION BRANDS: Faces "Gonzales" Suit in C.D. of California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fusion Brands America, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fusion Brands America, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01598-AG-KES (C.D. Cal., September 14, 2017). Fusion Brands America, Inc. manufactures and sells dermatology, cosmetics, and biological science products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J Ferrell, Esq. Pacific Trial Attorneys APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com G4S SECURE: "Abumohor" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Abumohor and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-23258, (S.D. Fla., August 28, 2017), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is a provider of security personnel and systems where Abumohor worked as a site captain. Once Plaintiff reaches 40 hours for the week, he is automatically moved to a different rate of pay in the pay system despite performing the same job in the same way. Furthermore, he does not clock-in any differently for these hours, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq. SORONDO ROSENBERG LEGAL PA 1825 Ponce de Leon Blvd. #329 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: (786) 708-7550 Email: rer@sorondorosenberg.com GC SERVICES: Faces "Mullins" Suit in C.D. of California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services LP. The case is styled as Lisa Mullins, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of a Class of persons who are similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GC Services LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01601 (C.D. Cal., September 14, 2017). GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of call center management and collection agency services in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. GHHS HEALTHCARE: "Bowden" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Adrianne Bowden on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GHHS Healthcare, LLC, d/b/a Georgia Home Health Services, Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-00143, (M.D. Ga., August 25, 2017), seeks compensation for all unpaid and underpaid wages, liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees and such other and further relief under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Medical Social Worker from approximately October 2016 through approximately June 2017, conducting home visits to patients receiving home care. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Moore. Esq. POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C. 3391 Peachtree Road, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30326 Tel: (404) 523-7706 Fax: (404) 524-1648 Email: michaelmoore@pmkm.com - and - Jerry E. Martin. Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Barrett Johnston, Esq. MARTIN & GARRISON LLC 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Tel: (615) 244-2202 Fax: (615) 252-3798 Email: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Tel: (215) 884-2491 Fax: (215) 884-2492 Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com GUARDIAN LIVING: Williams Seeks to Certify Direct Care Class ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled TIFFERY WILLIAMS, Individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. GUARDIAN LIVING SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-01901 (S.D. Tex.), asks the Court to conditionally certify a collective action and authorize notice to the potential class members consisting of: "All Direct Care Staff employees employed by Guardian Living Services, Inc., in the past three (3) years who were not paid the full time-and-a-half overtime premium for overtime hours worked in a given workweek." Ms. Williams filed her Original Complaint on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals on December 29, 2016, against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, namely for the Defendant's failure to pay overtime for all overtime hours worked. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ANEycVHX The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 2537 S. Gessner Rd., Suite 104 Houston, TX 77063 Telephone: (713) 223-8855 Facsimile: (713) 623-6399 E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Terrence B. Robinson, Esq. Mina Madani Banerjee, Esq. TB ROBINSON LAW GROUP, PLLC 1616 S. Voss Rd., Suite 870 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (832) 548-9399 E-mail: TRobinson@TBRobinsonlaw.com Mbanerjee@TBRobinsonlaw.com HEALTH CARE: 7th Cir. Reverses "Priddy" Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, issued an Opinion reversing the District Court's decision granting Class Certification in the case captioned SUSAN PRIDDY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, No. 16-4127 (7th Cir.). Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC) is one of the nation's largest health insurance providers. This appeal presents the question whether the district court erred by certifying a class action against HCSC. The named representatives assert that HCSC is violating federal and Illinois law by the way in which it is using third-party affiliates to provide various services. Plaintiffs moved for certification, and the district court granted their request. It certified four classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): (1) employers who purchased HCSC plans for employees in any of the five states served by HCSC; (2) beneficiaries of employer-furnished plans provided by HCSC in any of the five states; (3) individuals who purchased insurance directly from HCSC in any of the five states; and (4) Illinois insureds who were protected by Illinois insurance regulations. Altogether, the four classes included approximately ten million people. The court named Susan Priddy and Michael Beiler as the class representatives, and it designated counsel for the named plaintiffs as class counsel. The District Court concluded that the insurance policies governing each class member's relationship to HCSC were uniform, and thus that the common question of the legality of those terms predominated. HCSC disagreed vociferously with all this, pointing out many ways in which the proposed classes were heterogeneous and thus not suited to common treatment. HCSC filed the appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), and a panel of the Seventh Circuit agreed to accept it. The Seventh Circuit notes that it is not even clear that HCSC owed many class members any fiduciary duty at all, and the district court did not undertake this inquiry. Three of the four classes it certified include people whom HCSC does not insure and who do not pay it premiums it only administers their health benefits. Moreover, ERISA applies only to plans established or maintained by an employer or by an employee organization, or by both. It is therefore unclear at best how class members who bought insurance directly from HCSC can plausibly claim relief under the statute. Again, the district court did not explore this angle. The Seventh Circuit is thus unable to divine whether and how these concerns affected its ultimate certification decision. Even seemingly glaring problems went unaddressed we are uncertain, for instance, why the class expressly includes members who obtained health care coverage from a benefit plan underwritten, administered, or otherwise provided by Defendant, HCSC, but not subject to ERISA. It is possible that even if HCSC owed no fiduciary duty to the people whose benefits it merely administered, it may have worn the fiduciary hat for others. Providing an insured with medicine and deciding whether to cover her claims does not usually bring to mind a duty-free relationship. But the district court did not tell us how it approached these and other crucial points, or why they did or did not guide its certification decision, the Seventh Circuit held. Even if each individual omission does not compel a finding of abuse of discretion, the court's certification order faces the analytic equivalent of death by a thousand cuts cumulatively, the failure to provide a reasoned explanation on a string of important points compels reversal. Explanations are necessary; complex certification decisions cannot be made by judicial fiat, the Seventh Circuit added. The order granting class certification is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's August 31, 2017 Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/yc8zcpzzfrom Leagle.com. Helen E. Witt -- helen.witt@kirkland.com -- for Defendant- Appellant. James K. Horstman -- jkh@crayhuber.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. Christopher Landau -- christopher.landau@kirkland.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. Alexandra de Saint Phalle, 1227 S 7th St, Springfield, IL 62703, USA for Plaintiff-Appellee. Sopan Joshi -- sopan.joshi@kirkland.com -- for Defendant- Appellant. Jonathan P. Novoselsky, 303 W Madison St, Chicago, IL 60606, USA for Plaintiff-Appellee. Stephen W. Heil -- swh@crayhuber.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. Stacey G. Pagonis -- stacey.pagonis@kirkland.com -- for Defendant- Appellant. Laura K. Rif -- lriff@iu.edu -- for Defendant-Appellant. HELIX ENERGY: "Shirey" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- JASON SHIREY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02741 (S.D. Tex., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks all available relief, including compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act. Jason Shirey brings this action individually and on behalf of all Tool Pushers who worked for Helix and were paid a day rate but no overtime from three years preceding the filing of the Original Complaint and through the final disposition of this matter. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely work (and worked) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Helix Energy, known as Cal Dive International prior to 2006, is an American oil and gas services company headquartered in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452 1279 Facsimile: (361) 452 1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com HSN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the District of Delaware against HSN, Inc. ("HSN" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HSNI) for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the proposed sale of the Company to Liberty Interactive Corporation ("Liberty Interactive") (NASDAQ: QVCA, LVNTA). Such investors are encouraged to learn more about this case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/hsni. On July 6, 2017, HSN announced that it had entered a merger agreement and would be acquired by Liberty Interactive Corporation ("Liberty Interactive") (NASDAQ: QVCA, LVNTA) in a transaction valued at approximately $2.6 billion. Under the terms of the agreement, HSN shareholders will receive 1.65 shares of Series A QVC Group common stock for each share of HSN common stock. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you are a HSN shareholder and wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/hsni. You may also contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 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. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. [GN] HUMANA AT HOME: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Poggi" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuits entitled DAVID POGGI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated v. HUMANA AT HOME 1, INC., a Florida for-profit corporation; and HUMANA, INC., a foreign for-profit corporation, Lead Case No. 8:17-cv- 00433-SCB-MAP (M.D. Fla.), and HARRY CRUZ, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated v. HUMANA AT HOME 1, INC., a Florida for-profit corporation; and HUMANA, INC., a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 8:17-cv-1234-T-24-JSS (M.D. Fla.), moves for conditional certification and facilitation of court-authorized notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The consolidated case involves a multi-billion dollar, publically- traded health insurance corporation hiring a multi-million dollar, publically-traded data collection and "business intelligence" corporation to monitor, track and prod non-exempt members of the American health insurance industry workforce into increased productivity without payment of proper overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify a class of: all non-exempt Healthcare Coordinators, Personal Health Coaches, Home Visit Field Case Managers, Wellness Coordinators and other similarly-situated non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant from February 2014 to the present, who worked more than forty (40) hours per week, and who, by virtue of Defendants' unlawful "Workforce Optimization Policy," were not paid for: (a) all time spent working outside their regularly-scheduled shifts to complete their daily and/or weekly quota requirements; and/or (b) all electronically recorded rest periods of short duration (less than 20 minutes). The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to (i) direct the Defendants to produce a list containing the full names, job titles, last known addresses, personal e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and dates of employment for all putative class members; (ii) prohibit the Defendants' contact with any individual disclosed as a putative class member; (iii) authorize the undersigned counsel to send initial Notice to all individuals whose names appear on the list; (iv) direct the Defendants to post at every location in which it hires, trains and/or employs putative class members a copy of the initial Notice and Consent Form; (v) authorize the undersigned counsel to send a follow-up notice; and (vi) providing all individuals whose names appear on the list a total of 60 days from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff form. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kcrLvemK The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christina J. Thomas, Esq. Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. Morgan & Morgan 333 W. Vine St., Suite 1200 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 286-8369 E-mail: Cthomas@forthepeople.com Bmazaheri@forthepeople.com - and - W. John Gadd, Esq. Bank of America Bldg. 2727 Ulmerton Rd., Suite 250 Clearwater, FL 33762 Telephone: (727) 524-6300 E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com - and - Kyle Lee, Esq. LEE LAW PLLC P.O. Box 4476 Brandon, FL 33509-4476 Telephone: (813) 343-2813 E-mail: Kyle@kyleleelaw.com HUNTLEIGH USA: Thomas Moves to Certify Class of Service Agents -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled Mary L. Thomas, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Huntleigh USA Corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-03648 (S.D. Tex.), seeks conditional certification of a collective action and authority to send notice to potential class members consisting of: "All Service Agents employed by Huntleigh USA Corporation in the past three (3) years who were paid on an hourly rate without the full time-and-a-half overtime premium for all overtime hours worked." Ms. Thomas filed her Original Complaint on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals on Dec. 13, 2016, against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, namely for the Defendant's failure to pay overtime. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3HAXbUdi The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 2537 S. Gessner Rd., Suite 104 Houston, TX 77063 Telephone: (713) 223-8855 Facsimile: (713) 623-6399 E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Bryant S. Banes, Esq. Madeleine Wilkins, Esq. NEEL, HOOPER & BANES, P.C. 1800 West Loop South, Suite 1750 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 629-1800 Facsimile: (713) 629-1812 E-mail: bbanes@nhblaw.com mwilkins@nhblaw.com - and - Stephen B. Maule, Esq. Rex P. Fennessey, Esq. MCMAHON BERGER P.C. 2730 North Ballas Road, Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63131-3039 Telephone: (314) 567-7350 E-mail: maule@mcmahonberger.com fennessey@mcmahonberger.com MIDLAND FUNDING: Class Certification Sought in "Wheeler" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled KEVIN WHEELER, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members described herein v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-11152 (N.D. Ill.), seeks to certify a class defined as: (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) who accessed the MCM web site (c) and were offered a settlement or discount (d) on a credit card debt on which the last payment had been made more than five years prior to the accessing (e) where the date of access was on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action and on or before a date 21 days after the filing of this action. The case arises out of the Defendants' alleged practice of accessing individuals' credit information with the hope that those individuals then contact the Defendants so that the Defendants can offer settlements or discounts on time-barred debts without the disclosure of that fact. The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5QOPgFNg The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com cmiller@edcombs.com The Defendants are represented by: Heather L. Kramer, Esq. Theodore Wilson Seitz, Esq. Todd A. Gale, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 876-1700 Facsimile: (312) 876-1155 E-mail: hkramer@dykema.com tseitz@dykema.com tgale@dykema.com MIDWAY OILFIELD: Flores Moves to Certify Class of Tool Pushers -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JOSE A. FLORES, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. MIDWAY OILFIELD CONSTRUCTORS, INC. d/b/a MIDWAY ENERGY SERVICES, Case No. 2:17-cv- 00312-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.), moves for conditional certification and notice to potential plaintiffs pursuant to the collective action provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The class of "Potential Plaintiffs" is defined as: All of Defendant's current and former hourly-paid workers who, during any week from April 1, 2014, worked as a tool pusher for Midway Oilfield Constructors, Inc. or Midway Energy Services. Mr. Flores sued the Defendant to recover wages that should have been paid in accordance with the FLSA but were not. He alleges that the Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay him for all hours of work at the rates required by the FLSA. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VBN5pKUT The Plaintiff is represented by: Shane McGuire, Esq. THE MCGUIRE FIRM, PC 102 N. College Ave., Suite 301 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 630-7154 Facsimile: (903) 630-7173 E-mail: shane@mcguirefirm.com - and - Keith Miller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH MILLER 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 101 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 597-4090 Facsimile: (903) 597-3692 E-mail: keith@5974090.net The Defendant is represented by: Gaines West, Esq. WEST, WEBB, ALLBRITTON & GENTRY, P.C. 1515 Emerald Plaza College Station, TX 77845 Telephone: (979) 694-7000 Facsimile: (979) 694-8000 E-mail: gaines.west@westwebblaw.com INTERSTATE WAREHOUSING: Bid to Certify Settlement Class Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled KATHY WARREN, TONYA CALHOUN, CLARISSA ROGERS, and persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTERSTATE WAREHOUSING, INC., A TIPPMANN GROUP COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00014 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs and Defendant jointly ask the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying this case as a settlement class under Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3); 2. appointing Kathy Warren, Tonya Calhoun and Clarissa Rogers as Class Representatives and Justin Gilbert, as Class Counsel; 3. granting preliminary approval of a proposed settlement; 4. approving the notification plan to determine and notify class members; and 5. if the Court deems appropriate, scheduling a telephonic or in person fairness hearing to consider final approval of the settlement, the incentive award to Class Representatives and awards to any Class Members in the settlement class, and attorney fees to Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Bhivd29V The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin S. Gilbert, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT, PLC 100 W. Martin Luther King Blvd., Suite 504 Chattanooga, TN 37402 Telephone: (423) 499 3044 Facsimile: (731) 664 1540 The Defendant is represented by: Thomas M. Kimbrough, Esq. BARRETT McNAGNY LLP 215 E. Berry Street P.O. Box 2263 Fort Wayne, IN 46801 Telephone: (260) 423 9551 Facsimile: (260) 423 8920 - and - Robert E. Boston, Esq. WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH DAVIS, LLP Nashville City Center 511 Union Street, Suite 2700 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244 6380 Facsimile: (615) 244 6804 E-mail: Bob.boston@wallerlaw.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Moodie May Renew Bid to Certify by October 16 --------------------------------------------------------------- For the reasons stated on the record, the Honorable Fernando M. Olguin denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for class certification and preliminary approval of settlement agreement in the lawsuit captioned Shonntey Moodie, et al. v. Maxim Healthcare Services, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-03471-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.). Judge Olguin directed the Plaintiff to file a renewed motion for class certification and for preliminary approval of class action no later than October 16, 2017. The memorandum in support of the renewed motion shall not exceed 40 pages. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sE5hj3QM The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher P. Ridout, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328 Manhattan Beach, CA 90245 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com The Defendants are represented by: Joseph Duffy, Esq. Taylor C. Day, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-7378 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com tday@morganlewis.com IYOGI INC: Sued by "Bell" for Harassing Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- Karri Bell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Iyogi, Inc., a New York corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00669, (W.D. Wisc., August 28, 2017), seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and any other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. iYogi is a remote technical support firm which provides subscription based technical support for personal computers. It offers its services through yearly flat-fee technical support plans. After the one-year service plan expires, iYogi makes repeated and harassing telephone calls to consumers' cellular telephones, even after repeated requests to stop calling, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 JAUREGUI & LINDSEY: Faces "Blackmon" Suit in M.D. of Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jauregui & Lindsey, LLC. The case is styled as Gregory Blackmon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jauregui & Lindsey, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00610-TFM (M.D. Ala., September 14, 2017). Jauregui & Lindsey, LLC is a law firm in Birmingham, AL.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis R. Hussey, Esq. Hussey Law Firm LLC 10 N. Section #122 Fairhope, AL 36532 Tel: (251) 928-1423 Email: gulfcoastadr@gmail.com KAIGLER & ASSOCIATES: Allstate Has No Duty to Indemnify ------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, issued an Opinion affirming the judgment of the trial court in all aspects in the case captioned ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. KAIGLER & ASSOCIATES, INC., No. M2016-01003-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App.). Declaratory judgment action in which an insurance company seeks a determination of its coverage obligations arising out of a business insurance policy it issued relative to a class action suit brought against the insured for sending unsolicited faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Kaigler & Company, Inc. (Kaigler) is a surplus line insurance company that makes specialty insurance products available to independent agents; it is owned by David Kaigler. A class action suit was filed against Kaigler in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, which alleged that Kaigler sent unsolicited fax messages to recipients in violation the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act (TCPA). The complaint sought statutory damages under the TCPA in the amount of $500 per violation; alleged that Kaigler's practice of faxing unsolicited advertisements caused the recipients to lose paper, toner, and the use of their fax machines, as well as lost time by employees. The court granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, holding that all elements of the TCPA claim had been met; the court denied, without prejudice, the portion of the motion directed at damages. On February 19, 2015, Allstate, which issued a Customizer Business Insurance Policy to Kaigler, filed suit in Williamson County Chancery Court, seeking a declaration of its responsibility to defend Kaigler in the Class Action Suit and what coverage was triggered under the policy. Specifically, Allstate sought a determination that its obligations to Kaigler arose "only under the 'advertising injury' coverage and that a duty to defend Kaigler does not arise under the 'accidental event' coverage" or the personal injury coverage. Kaigler answered, inter alia, denying the allegations of the complaint and asserting that Allstate failed to state a claim for relief. In due course, Allstate filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Kaigler in the Class Action Lawsuit under the "advertising injury," "accidental event," or "personal injury" coverage. The court granted Allstate's motion in part, holding that Allstate did not have a duty to indemnify under the "accidental event" or "personal injury" coverage; that it had a duty to defend Kaigler under the "advertising injury" coverage; and that "[b]ecause Allstate has a duty to defend Kaigler under the 'advertising injury' coverage . . . Allstate has a duty to defend Kaigler against all claims." Kaigler filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, requesting that the court reconsider the grant of summary judgment on the issue of Allstate's duty to indemnify under its "accidental event" coverage. The court denied Kaigler's motion, holding that two affidavits Kaigler proffered as new information would not have changed the outcome of the case, that the information contained in the affidavits was available at the time summary judgment was granted, and that adjudication of the duty to indemnify question was proper in light of the status of the underlying class action in which liability had been determined. On appeal, Kaigler asks the Tenn. App. to determine whether the trial court erred in ruling on Allstate's motion and whether the trial court erred in ruling that Allstate has no duty to defend or indemnify under the "accidental event" coverage. The Tenn. App. first examined Kaigler's contention that because the duty to defend is not actually in dispute and the duty to indemnify is premature, the trial court improperly issued an advisory opinion. Kaigler's contention is without merit, the Tenn. App. pointed out that the Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-14-103 allows for any person interested under a written contract to have determined any question of construction arising under the contract and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations there- under. While the Class Action Suit has not come to a final resolution, Kaigler's liability under the TCPA has been determined, and the only matter remaining is the amount of damages to be awarded to class members. Thus, a determination of Allstate's obligations under Kaigler's business policy is authorized by the statute and is not premature; in making a determination regarding the extent of Allstate's duties under the insurance policy, the court did not issue an advisory opinion. Kaigler's act of sending the faxes was intended, the injury, as put forth in the Class Action Suit, as a loss of paper and toner, is an expected result of the transmission of a fax. Thus, Kaigler's action of sending the faxes does not fall within the definition of accident, as set forth in the policy, the Tenn. App. held. Moreover, the plain, literal, and popular definition of the word accident is an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance. Kaigler's intentional sending of the faxes was not an unplanned event or circumstance. Allstate put forth evidence sufficient to prove that the undisputed facts entitle it to summary judgment, thus shifting the burden to Kaigler to introduce evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Kaigler argued that because it did not intend for the sent faxes to injure the recipients, coverage was not precluded under the accidental event coverage. Kaigler failed to put forth any evidence, by affidavit or otherwise, establishing a material question of fact to support this argument. Construing the definition of accidental event in light of the undisputed facts, Allstate was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Kaigler contends that the court erred in denying its Rule 59.04 motion, which asserted that summary judgment was improper because (1) there is a genuine issue of material fact, (2) a determination of the duty to indemnify should not have been made before there is an underlying judgment against Kaigler, or, alternatively, (3) Allstate has a duty to defend under the accidental event coverage. In support of his motion, Kaigler submitted two affidavits of David Kaigler. In considering the newly proffered affidavits, the court properly considered the relevant factors the importance of the new evidence and Kaigler's reasoning for failing to submit the evidence in its response to the motion for summary judgment. As respects the importance of the new evidence, the court determined that the affidavits would not change the outcome of the case. With respect to Kaigler's explanation for not submitting the affidavits in response to the motion for summary judgment, the court determined that Kaigler offered no justifiable reason why it did not submit the first affidavit, which existed at the time the motion for summary judgment was filed, nor did it offer any reason for why the information contained in the second affidavit was not available to him prior the entry of summary judgment. The Tenn. App. concluded that the trial court applied the correct legal standard in its determination, based its decision on sound reasoning, and made a clear assessment of the evidence. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to alter or amend. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all respects. A full-text copy of the Tenn. App.'s August 31, 2017 Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7cbrsl5from Leagle.com. David L. Cooper, 208 Third Ave. N. Ste. 300 Nashville, TN 37201- 1642, for the appellant, Kaigler & Associates, Inc. Jay R. McLemore, 5200 Maryland Way; Brentwood, Tennessee 37027, Michael Resis -- mresis@salawus.com -- and Christine V. Anto -- canto@salawus.com -- Chicago, Illinois, for the appellee, Allstate Insurance Company. KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "Shonkwiler" Suit over Unsolicited Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN F. SHONKWILER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-05278-JCS (N.D. Cal., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to recover injunction requiring Kaiser to cease all unsolicited calling activities, award of statutory damages to the Class under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Kaiser provides healthcare plans to its members through its network of Kaiser Permanente healthcare providers. Kaiser provides these services under the Kaiser Permanente name. In an effort to market its services, Kaiser made (or directed to be made on its behalf) unsolicited calls to the wireless telephones of Plaintiff and each of the members of the Class without prior express written consent, in violation of the TCPA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard L. Miller II, Esq. Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq. Ke Liu, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 North State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236 0000 Facsimile: (312) 878 1342 E-mail: rmiller@siprut.com tmclawhorn@siprut.com kliu@siprut.com - and - Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq. Richard D. Lambert, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW, APC 75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235 7140 Facsimile: (916) 235 7141 E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Chacon's Bid to Certify Cont'd; Hearing Nov. 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., ruled that the motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned Wendy Chacon v. Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit, A Professional Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-02766 (N.D. Ill.), is entered and continued generally. A further status hearing is set for November 15, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LlluPs4h PATRIOT DRILLING: Class Certification Sought in "Serrette" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JOSHUA SERRETTE, TIMOTHY HEMPHILL, BARRY SERRETTE, AND CORY FISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PATRIOT DRILLING FLUIDS, Q'MAX SOLUTIONS, AND Q'MAX AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:17- cv-00914-AJS (W.D. Pa.), move the Court to conditionally certify a group of similarly situated workers of Patriot: ALL CURRENT AND FORMER MUD ENGINEERS/DRILLING FLUID CONSULTANTS AND SOLIDS CONTROL OPERATORS OF PATRIOT WHO WERE CLASSIFIED AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND PAID A DAY-RATE DURING THE LAST THREE (3) YEARS. ("PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS") The Plaintiffs ask that the Court grant the Motion and: (1) conditionally certify this action for purposes of notice and discovery; (2) order that judicial notice proposed by Plaintiffs be sent to all Putative Class Members; (3) order the mailing and e-mailing of the proposed notice, along with a reminder notice after 30 days; (4) order Patriot to post the notice documents on Patriot's jobsites/offices for the entire opt-in period; (5) authorize follow up calls to ensure returned notices are delivered to the Putative Class Members; (6) order Patriot to produce to Plaintiffs' Counsel the contact information for each Putative Class Member within 20 days of the Courts order; and (7) authorize a sixty day notice period for Putative Class Members to join the case. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ccc9klWU The Plaintiffs are represented by: 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 - 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 - 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 PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Moves for Final OK of $6MM Brown Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the lawsuit styled DEBRA BROWN, SANDRA MORTON, and BARBARA LABUSZEWSKI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-05272-VC (N.D. Cal.), move the Court to grant: (1) final approval of the Parties' Collective/Class Action Settlement Agreement, and to enter judgment in accordance with the Settlement; and (2) final class certification and collective action designation of the settlement Class certified in the Preliminary Approval Order. The Settlement, in the amount of $6,255,000, resolves litigation over the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' claims that TPMG violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and California wage-and-hour laws by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and the Class Members for pre- and post-shift work performed off the clock. The approximate range of settlement shares for participating Class Members is between $5.29 and $9,531, and the estimated average settlement share is $2,828. As part of the Settlement and the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, this Settlement Class was certified: All current and former hourly advice nurses who work or have worked for TPMG at one or more of its call centers located in Sacramento, San Jose or Vallejo, California, at any time from September 14, 2012, through the date on which the Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement, excluding those individuals who already have resolved the claims asserted in the Action, whether by settlement or adjudication. The Court will commence a hearing on October 5, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OzXZ3d0g The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. Jason J. Thompson, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 436-8453 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com jthompson@sommerspc.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq. Caitlin M. Wang, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com caitlinmarianwang@paulhastings.com KRAFT BISTRO: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE KRAFT BISTRO, LTD. d/b/a KRAFT BISTRO, and KHALIL WAHAB, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 06912 (S.D.N.Y., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his lawfully earned minimum wages and earned overtime compensation in direct contravention of the FLSA and New York Labor Law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209 3933 Facsimile: (212) 209 7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com KXU INC: Taiwanese Restaurant Underpays Staff, "Chen" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH HEI RU CHEN, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KXU, INC., a California corporation; YILING WU, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC675383 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to recover all unpaid wages under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, in order to minimize labor costs, Defendants have willfully failed to create or implement any policies in an effort to comply with California wage and hour laws. Defendants have no employee handbook and do not inform their employees of their rights to take meal periods or rest breaks, to earn overtime and double-time wages, or, among other things, to have a break room or other designated area to take their breaks. Defendant Wu, by and through Defendant KXU, and other corporate entities yet to be discovered, own and operate several successful Taiwanese restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ray Hsu, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RAY HSU 801 S. Garfield Ave., Suite 338 Alhambra, CA 91801 Telephone: (626) 600 1086 Facsimile: (877) 771 3407 E-mail: labor@rayhsulaw.com MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Wyckoff" -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued an Order affirming District Court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's class action suit alleging violations of Sherman Act and New York's Donnelly Act in the case captioned JORDAN WYCKOFF, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DARWIN COX, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, an unincorporated association doing business as MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, ALLAN H. SELIG, ROBERT D. MANFRED, JR., KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP, MIAMI MARLINS, L.P., SAN FRANCISCO BASEBALL ASSOCIATES LLC, BOSTON RED SOX BASEBALL CLUB L.P., ANGELS BASEBALL LP, CHICAGO WHITE SOX LTD., ST. LOUIS CARDINALS, LLC, COLORADO ROCKIES BASEBALL CLUB, LTD., THE BASEBALL CLUB OF SEATTLE, LLLP, THE CINCINNATI REDS, LLC, HOUSTON BASEBALL PARTNERS LLC, ATHLETICS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, ROGERS BLUE JAYS BASEBALL PARTNERSHIP, CLEVELAND INDIANS BASEBALL CO., L.P, CLEVELAND INDIANS BASEBALL CO., INC., PADRES L.P., SAN DIEGO PADRES BASEBALL CLUB, L.P., MINNESOTA TWINS, LLC, WASHINGTON NATIONALS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC, DETROIT TIGERS, INC., LOS ANGELES DODGERS LLC, LOS ANGELES DODGERS HOLDING COMPANY LLC, STERLING METS L.P., ATLANTA NATIONAL LEAGUE BASEBALL CLUB, INC., AZPB L.P., BALTIMORE ORIOLES, INC., BALTIMORE ORIOLES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, THE PHILLIES, PITTSBURGH ASSOCIATES, L.P., TAMPA BAY RAYS BASEBALL LTD., RANGERS BASEBALL EXPRESS, LLC, RANGERS BASEBALL, LLC, CHICAGO CUBS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC, MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, INC., MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, L.P., NEW YORK YANKEES P'SHIP, Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-3795-cv (2nd Cir.). Plaintiffs-Appellants Jordan Wyckoff, individually and on behalf of other professional baseball scouts, and Darwin Cox (Plaintiffs), appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. That judgment dismissed Plaintiffs' purported class action suit alleging violations of the Sherman Act, New York's Donnelly Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act by the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, doing business as Major League Baseball, its current and former Commissioner, and its 30 professional baseball clubs (Franchises) (Defendants). Plaintiffs argue primarily that Defendants conspired to decrease competition in the labor market for professional baseball scouts in violation of the Sherman Act and New York's Donnelly Act. Moreover, they argue that the district court erred by ignoring factual allegations indicating that the professional baseball scouts' claims fall outside professional baseball's long- recognized exemption from antitrust regulation. The Second Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court's decision. "Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce. 15 U.S.C. Section 1. Since 1922, however, the Supreme Court has recognized a judicially created exemption from antitrust regulation for the business of baseball. Fed. Baseball Club of Balt. v. Nat'l League of Prof'l Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200, 208-09. The business of providing public baseball games for profit between clubs of professional baseball players was not within the scope of the federal antitrust laws."). Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258, 282, 284 (1972). Our Court has applied this precedent to exempt from antitrust regulation certain claims brought by professional baseball umpires against the American League. Salerno v. Am. League of Prof'l Baseball Clubs, 429 F.2d 1003, 1005 (2d Cir. 1970)," the Second Circuit held. "Plaintiffs' own allegations foreclose their argument that they are not involved in the business of baseball. The complaint states that professional baseball scouts assess baseball players and project the players' abilities to perform at the major league level, and they present that information to the Franchises. Plaintiffs acknowledge that this information is important and valuable to the Franchises, because it guides the Franchises' decisions on how to rank players to be acquired through free agency, the amateur draft, and other player acquisition means. Plaintiffs further acknowledge that because the Franchises place importance on the acquisition and development of baseball players a scout who is good at evaluating baseball players has great value," the Second Circuit further held. Based on Plaintiffs' allegations, the district court properly concluded that professional baseball scouts are involved in the business of baseball and, therefore, that the complained of conduct fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted under existing precedent, the Second Circuit added. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's August 31, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yapy2fxqfrom Leagle.com. Garrett R. Broshuis -- gbroshuis@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery, LLC (Robert L. King -- rlking@deveboise.com -- George A. Zelcs -- gzelcs@koreintillery.com -- on the brief), St. Louis, MO., Appearing for Appellants. Judith S. Scolnick -- JSCOLNICK@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Peter A. Barile, III -- PBARILE@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Christopher M. Burke -- CBURKE@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, New York, NY, and San Diego, CA., Appearing for Appellants. Michael Dell'Angelo -- mdellangelo@bm.net -- Patrick F. Madden -- pmadden@bm.net -Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, PA., Appearing for Appellants. Elliot R. Peters -- epeters@keker.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP, (John W. Keker -- jkeker@kvn.com -- R. Adam Lauridsen -- alauridsen@keker.com -- Thomas E. Gorman -- tgorman@keker.com -- on the brief), San Francisco, CA., Appearing for Appellees. Elise M. Bloom -- ebloom@proskauer.com -- Adam M. Lupion -- alupion@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY.,3 Appearing for Appellees. MARRONE BIO: Court Orders 60-Day Stay of Situations Fund Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P., SPECIAL SITUATIONS CAYMAN FUND, L.P., and DAVID M. FINEMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated., Plaintiffs, v. MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE, JAMES B. BOYD, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, HECTOR ABSI, ELIN MILLER, RANJEET BHATIA, PAMELA CONTAG, TIM FOGARTY, LAWRENCE HOUGH, JOSEPH HUDSON, LES LYMAN, RICHARD ROMINGER, SHAUGN STANLEY, SEAN SCHICKEDANZ, and ERNST & YOUNG LLP, Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv- 2571-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.), lead Plaintiffs Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. and Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P. (Lead Plaintiffs), additional named plaintiff David M. Fineman and Defendant Ernst & Young LLP (EY ), by and through undersigned counsel, stipulate the following as concerns a continuation of the stay on all discovery and other proceedings in the action pending the outcome of continuing discussions between and among the parties. Lead Plaintiffs filed a purported class action complaint against Defendants Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. (Company) and certain of MBII's directors and officers (MBII Defendants). The Court consolidated related actions, designating the instant action as the Master File, administratively closed the related actions, and appointed Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. and Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P. as Lead Plaintiffs and Lowenstein Sandler LLP as Lead Counsel. Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint and Plaintiffs and the MBII Defendants reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims against the MBII Defendants. The Court approved the settlement between Plaintiffs and the MBII Defendants in an Order and Final Judgment as to Settling Parties dismissing all claims against the MBII Defendants from the action, which judgment is now final. EY moved to dismiss the claims against it set forth in the TAC as EY is the only Defendant remaining in the action. The Court denied EY's motion to dismiss and EY filed its Answer to the TAC. Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, approved the parties' stipulation that the action be stayed for a further sixty days. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7k2pwurfrom Leagle.com. Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Michael John McGaughey, Lowenstein Sandler LLP, 445 S Figueroa St Ste 3177. Los Angeles, CA 90071 Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Michael John McGaughey, Lowenstein Sandler LLP. Kent Oldham, Plaintiff, represented by Robert S. Green -- gn@classcounsel.com -- Green & Noblin, P.C.. David M. Fineman, Plaintiff, represented by Michael John McGaughey, Lowenstein Sandler LLP. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell -- jlobdell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP. Pamela G. Marrone, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell, Morrison & Foerster LLP. James B. Boyd, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell, Morrison & Foerster LLP. Donald J. Glidewell, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell, Morrison & Foerster LLP. Hector Absi, Defendant, represented by John V. McDermott -- jmcdermott@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Charles Sandler -- jsandler@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck & Judson Earle Lobdell, Morrison & Foerster LLP. Elin Miller, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell, Morrison & Foerster LLP. Ranjeet Bhatia, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell, Morrison & Foerster LLP. Pamela Contag, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell, Morrison & Foerster LLP. Tim Fogarty, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell, Morrison & Foerster LLP. Lawrence Hough, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell, Morrison & Foerster LLP. MDL 2284: Arborist Panel's Denial of "Gaffey" Appeal Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the Arborist Panel decision and denying Dan Gaffey's appeal in the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS. MDL No. 11-md-02284. (E.D. Pa.). Dan Gaffey appeals the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel, claiming that several of his trees were damaged by Imprelis, notwithstanding DuPont's refusal to compensate him. DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-target vegetation. After widespread reports of damage to non-target vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling Imprelis. Despite this voluntary process, various plaintiffs continued to pursue their lawsuits, alleging consumer fraud/protection act violations, breach of express and/or implied warranty, negligence, strict products liability, nuisance, and trespass claims based on the laws of numerous states. After months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the parties came to a settlement agreement. Among the three settlement classes is a property owner class. That class includes all persons or entities who owns or owned property in the United States to which Imprelis was applied, as well as all persons who own or owned property adjacent to property to which Imprelis was applied and whose trees showed damage from Imprelis on or before the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order. The Court also retained exclusive jurisdiction over any action relating to the Settlement: "Without affecting the finality of this Order, the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the implementation, enforcement, and performance of the Settlement Agreement, and shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any suit, action, motion, proceeding, or dispute arising out of or relating to the Settlement Agreement or the applicability of the Settlement Agreement that cannot be resolved by negotiation and agreement by Plaintiffs and DuPont." Dan Gaffey's Appeal A DuPont arborist visited his property. Despite Mr. Gaffey's recollection that the inspector attributed the damage to Imprelis, the inspector noted on the claims form that none of the trees showed signs of Imprelis injury. Mr. Gaffey objected to the denial of his claim and submitted photographs of the trees he believed were affected by Imprelis. DuPont scheduled another visit to his property, and a second inspector reaffirmed the original inspector's conclusion that the tree damage was not due to Imprelis. Mr. Gaffey objected again, submitting largely the same photographs, and DuPont reaffirmed its denial. With his third objection, Mr. Gaffey enclosed a report from his own arborist, who noted that he was suspicious of Imprelis being the causing agent of the tree damage. DuPont denied the claim again. Mr. Gaffey appealed to the Arborist Panel, and they denied his appeal. DuPont urged the Court to adopt the standard of review used for arbitration, meaning that the Arborist Panel's fact finding should only be displaced when there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, where the arbitrators refused to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy, or where the arbitrators exceeded their powers. Two arborists who visited Mr. Gaffey's property in person could not find typical Imprelis symptoms, and the Arborist Panel, after viewing photographs and reviewing all three arborists' conclusions, similarly was unable to attribute the tree damage to Imprelis. Because the Court, in view of all the evidence presented, does not find the Panel's conclusion arbitrary or capricious, the Court will deny Mr. Gaffey's appeal. The Court will affirm the Arborist Panel decision and deny Mr. Gaffey's appeal. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017 Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/yckw6sa3from Leagle.com. MDL 2284: Court Affirms Arborist Panel Denial of "Lingles" Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the Arborist Panel decision and denying Debbie and Glenn Lingles' appeal in the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS. MDL No. 11-md-02284. (E.D. Pa.). Debbie and Glenn Lingle appeal the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel, claiming that three of their trees should be rated for removal and replacement. DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-target vegetation. After widespread reports of damage to non-target vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling Imprelis. Pont started its own Claim Resolution Process to compensate victims of Imprelis damage. Despite this voluntary process, various plaintiffs continued to pursue their lawsuits, alleging consumer fraud/protection act violations, breach of express and/or implied warranty, negligence, strict products liability, nuisance, and trespass claims based on the laws of numerous states. After months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the parties came to a settlement agreement. The Imprelis Class Action Settlement ("Settlement") covers three classes of Imprelis Plaintiffs. Among the three settlement classes is a property owner class. That class includes all persons or entities who own or owned property in the United States to which Imprelis was applied, as well as all persons who own or owned property adjacent to property to which Imprelis was applied and whose trees showed damage from Imprelis on or before the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order. DuPont sent an arborist to inspect the property, and that arborist found no additional lmprelis damage. DuPont denied the claim, and the Lingles objected. In their objection, the Lingles added a fourth tree, which they argue should also be removed and replaced. The Lingles then appealed to the Arborist Panel and submitted some photographs to support their claim. The Panel reviewed the materials submitted and agreed that one of the four trees at issue in the appeal should be rated for removal and replacement, but denied the appeal as to the other three trees. DuPont urged the Court to adopt the standard of review used for arbitration, meaning that the Arborist Panel's fact finding should only be displaced when there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, where the arbitrators refused to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy, or where the arbitrators exceeded their powers. The Lingles seek warranty coverage for three trees that they claim were damaged by Imprelis. They argue that contrary to the Panel's assessment that the photographs they submitted were of poor quality, the photographs2 adequately demonstrate the poor condition of their trees and support their appeal.3 Having reviewed the photographs, however, the Court cannot conclude with any certainty that Imprelis was the cause of the damage to the Lingles' trees or that the trees' condition warrants removal and replacement. The Court will therefore uphold the Panel's decision. The Court will affirm the Arborist Panel decision and deny the Lingles' appeal. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017 Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8akh7e3from Leagle.com. MDL 2284: Court Denies J. Heusinkveld's Appeal ---------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the Arborist Panel's decision and denying Jake Heusinkveld's appeal in the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS, MDL No. 11-md-02284 (E.D. Pa.). Jake Heusinkveld appeals the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel, claiming that he should receive compensation for arborvitae hedges that he believes were killed by Imprelis DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-target vegetation. After widespread reports of damage to non-target vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling Imprelis. After months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the parties came to a settlement agreement. Under the Settlement, property owner class members who filed claims by the claims deadline would receive tree removal (or compensation for tree removal), payments for replacement trees, tree care and maintenance payments, and a 15% payment for incidental damages. The Settlement included a warranty that provided for all benefits but the 15% incidental damages award for lmprelis damage that manifested after the claims period closed. The Court also retained exclusive jurisdiction over any action relating to the Settlement: "Without affecting the finality of this Order, the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the implementation, enforcement, and performance of the Settlement Agreement, and shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any suit, action, motion, proceeding, or dispute arising out of or relating to the Settlement Agreement or the applicability of the Settlement Agreement that cannot be resolved by negotiation and agreement by Plaintiffs and DuPont." A DuPont inspector visited his property, but because the arborvitae had already been removed, the inspector was unable to determine what caused the damage. DuPont then denied his claim. Mr. Heusinkveld objected and submitted photographs showing the arborvitae before and after the application of Imprelis and a statement from the landscaper who removed the arborvitae who noted their quick decline. DuPont again denied his claim. Mr. Heusinkveld then appealed to the Arborist Panel, including the same materials submitted to DuPont, as well as a statement from a landscape developer noting her own observation of the decline of the arborvitae. Neither that statement nor the previous landscaper statement directly commented on the cause of the damage to the arborvitae. DuPont urged the Court to adopt the standard of review used for arbitration, meaning that the Arborist Panel's fact finding should only be displaced when there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, where the arbitrators refused to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy, or where the arbitrators exceeded their powers. 9 U.S.C. section 10. No one disputes that Imprelis was applied near his arborvitae. However, while Mr. Heusinkveld seems to rely on the argument that exposure and the timing of the damage to his arborvitae lead to the conclusion that Imprelis was the culprit, the Appeals Panel found this evidence insufficient without objective evidence of lmprelis symptomology. In reviewing the photographs submitted by Mr. Heusinkveld, it is certainly evident that his arborvitae were not healthy, but the photographs do not include close up shots of the damage, such that it is possible to examine the precise symptoms or the nature of the damage. Based on the lack of evidence of Imprelis symptomology, the Court does not find that the Panel's decision was arbitrary or capricious. The Court will affirm the Arborist Panel decision and deny Mr. Heusinkveld's appeal. A full-text copy of the District of Court's August 31, 2017 Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/y988jfc8 from Leagle.com. MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Votta" and "Fair" Suits over Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- Two lawsuits against Monsanto Company seek damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Each of the Plaintiffs maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. According to each of the lawsuits, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of Plaintiff's use of, and exposure to, Roundup which caused or was a substantial contributing factor in causing Plaintiff to suffer from cancer, specifically NHL, and Plaintiff suffered severe and personal injuries which are permanent and lasting in nature, physical pain and mental anguish, including diminished enjoyment of life. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The 2 lawsuits are captioned as: "RENO VOTTA, the Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02402-DDN (E.D. Mo., Sep. 12, 2017)"; and "MICHAEL R. FAIR, the Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02399 (E.D. Mo., Sep. 12, 2017)". The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob A Flint FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC 222 E. Park St. Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 205 2017 Facsimile: (618) 288 2864 E-mail: jflint@flintfirm.com - and - David J. Wool, Esq. Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq. ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, P.C. 7171 W. Alaska Drive Lakewood, CO 80226 Telephone: (303) 376 6360 Facsimile: (303) 376 6361 E-mail: aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com david.wool@andruswagstaff.com NIKKO HIBACHI: Sushi Resto Underpays Staff, "Yang" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- An Qi Yang, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nikko Hibachi Steakhouse & Bar Inc. d/b/a Nikko Sushi Steakhouse Restaurant & Lounge, Ming Jiang, and Steven "Doe" (last name unknown), the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05352 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, "spread of hours" premium for each day they worked 10 or more hours, compensation for failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring and failure to provide wage statements (paystubs) in violation of the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. 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 Plaintiff, minimum wages and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, the lawsuit says. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 177-21 Union Turnpike, Fresh Meadows, New York 11366.[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: rqu@hanglaw.com NORTH TEXAS MAINTENANCE: "Smith" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH SMITH, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the PLAINTIFF, v. NORTH TEXAS MAINTENANCE, INC., A.L. HELMCAMP, INC. AND CLINT HEMBY, INDIVIDUALLY, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:17-cv-00641 (E.D. Tex., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Defendants jointly employ rest area attendants throughout Texas. The primary duty of these individuals is to clean and maintain rest areas located alongside Texas highways. However, in order to avoid responsibility for payment of overtime under the FLSA, Defendants have improperly classified their employees as independent contractors. Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are hourly, nonexempt employees. Throughout their employment, Defendants repeatedly refused to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime pay for hours worked over 40 per week.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. DUNHAM & JONES, P.C. 1800 Guadalupe Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 777 7777 Facsimile: (512) 340 4051 E-mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com PARAMOUNT EQUITY: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Titus" Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a Memorandum and Opinion denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned DENISE TITUS, Plaintiff, v. PARAMOUNT EQUITY MORTGAGE, LLC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendant, No. 2:17-cv-00349-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Denise Titus brings this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class action against Defendant Paramount Equity Mortgage, LLC, alleging violations of the FLSA and of the California Labor Code. Now before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. Plaintiff was hired as an hourly, non-exempt employee for Defendant. While Plaintiff's FAC does not allege exactly when her employment began or terminated, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated a number of employment laws, including various provisions regulating overtime wages and wage statements. Plaintiff also brings suit under California's Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). As a prerequisite to Plaintiff's employment, she signed an arbitration agreement which provides: "To resolve employment disputes in an efficient and cost- effective manner, you and Paramount Equity Mortgage (the Company) agree that any and all claims arising out of or related to your employment that could be filed in a court of law shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration, and not to any other forum." The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides that a written provision in a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. Generally, in deciding whether a dispute is subject to the arbitration agreement, a court must answer two questions: (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, and, if so, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. Class Action Waiver In Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. granted, 137 S.Ct. 809(2017),2 the Ninth Circuit held that an employment contract that required employees to pursue claims in separate proceedings as a condition of employment violated the NLRA. It did so because the NLRA's protection of concerted activity grants employees "the right to pursue work-related legal claims together. Plaintiff argues that Morris renders the class action waiver at issue here similarly unenforceable as violative of the NLRA. Defendant, however, argues that Morris is distinguishable since, unlike in Morris, the arbitration agreement here allows employees to still bring litigation claims jointly, so long as the action is not a class or collective action. Plaintiff has the better argument, the Court said. Morris is dispositive class action waivers signed as a condition of employment are unenforceable. Because class actions are a form of concerted activity, the class action waiver at issue here does exactly what Section 8 prohibits, the Court added. Defendant provides no authority to support its apparent contention that restrictions on concerted activity are permissible simply because an alternative exists. Accordingly, the class action waiver at issue here is unenforceable. PAGA Waiver Defendant also relies on the PAGA waiver's restriction that Plaintiff brings any dispute on an individual basis only in support of its motion to compel. However, binding precedent also squarely renders the arbitration agreement's PAGA waiver unenforceable. The California Supreme Court has held that California Civil Code Sections 1668 and 3513 prohibit the enforcement of PAGA waivers. Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yazp27zv from Leagle.com. Denise Titus, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Joshua Wasserman -- rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley P.C. Denise Titus, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas John Scardigli- nscardigli@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, P.C., Vladimir Joseph Kozina -- vjkozinaj@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley P.C. & William J. Gorham, III -- wgorham@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, P.C. Paramount Equity Mortgage, LLC, Defendant, represented by John L. Barber -- John.Barber@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Karen Weiling Luh -- Karen.Luh@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith & Tracy Wei Costantino -- costantino@lbbslaw.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Settles Production Assistant Defecation CA -------------------------------------------------------------- Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that over a year and a half after a quartet of production assistants launched a class action lawsuit against Paramount Pictures, Leonardo DiCaprio's Appain Way, Red Granite Pictures and others over not being paid minimum way and overtime, everyone is asking a federal judge to sign off on the six-figure settlement they've reached. In case, you've not heard this was the lawsuit where the P.A.'s claimed in their initial January 21, 2016 filing that "many of the plaintiffs are forced to urinate and defecate into bottles and buckets in their vehicles." Working on flicks like The Wolf Of Wall Street, the NYC-based P.A.'s primary duty was, as the January 2016 jury demanding complaint said, "secure sets, lots and streets" for the movies they were working on. Needless to say, this risked becoming a messy business for the studio and the production companies if it went to trial and revealed some of the dirty side of the industry. On September 8, after months of negotiations and preliminary proposals, the plaintiffs submitted Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of the Class and Collective Action Settlement that would see $700,000 put into a fund by Paramount and Red Granite. That's $700,00 that lawyers at Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP will get $233,333.33 of if there are no 11th hour objections and U.S. Magistrate Judge James Francis gives the settlement the green light after a September 19 "fairness hearing." In an accompanying memorandum of law, the attorneys make a point of say that "Class Counsel contends that this request for one- third (1/3) of the Settlement Amount for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses is reasonable and is within the accepted range typically awarded in contingency fee common fund and FLSA cases." Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP also notes "not a single objection was received to Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses." Additionally, settlement administrators Kurtzman, Carson Consultants, LLC will be paid just under $22,000 to handle the day-to-day stuff once the deal is given formal approval. With what's left, the settlement is to cover the approximately 393 class members "who provided parking production assistant services" on any production from Paramount and the other defendants. If given final approval by the NYC based judge, the settlement ensures that no one of the claimants will receive anything less than $50 from the agreement. Initial plaintiffs Christian Pellot, Joselyn Wint, Ali Muhammed and Johnathan Tucker will get $2,500 each and mediation participants Corey Leach, Priamo Fermin and Ray Delgadillo will get $1,000 each. "The Settlement confers substantial benefits on the Settlement Class Members without the risk and uncertainty of litigation," states the proposed judgment and final approval order that was submitted to Judge Francis. "Settlement Class Members are recovering the equivalent of 100% of their alleged overtime damages and substantial relief on their other claims, after attorney fees, service awards, claims administration," it goes on to say. Paramount and Red Granite, who have other on-going legal issues with the Department of Justice over alleged the ill-gotten finances via Malaysia, are represented by Seth Pierce of L.A's Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp LLP. [GN] PAY CAR: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Lester" --------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Beckley Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint, or, in the Alternative for a More Definite Statement, in the case captioned DOUGIE LESTER, Plaintiff, v. PAY CAR MINING, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-00740 (S.D.W.Va.). The Court has reviewed the Complaint, the Motion of Defendants to Dismiss Complaint, or, in the Alternative for a More Definite Statement, and the Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for a More Definite Statement. The Plaintiff, Dougie Lester, initiated this putative class action and the Plaintiff named Pay Car Mining, Inc., Bluestone Industries, Inc., Bluestone Coal Corp., Keystone Service Industries, Inc., and Mechel Bluestone, Inc. as Defendants. The Plaintiff was an employee of Mechel Bluestone and Pay Car Mining at the Pay Car Mine in McDowell County, West Virginia. Mr. Lester alleges that he was laid off without prior written notice within a 90-day period encompassing other layoffs at the Pay Car Mine. The management carried out a mass layoff at the Pay Car Mine, and neither the miners nor their union representatives received written notice of the layoffs in advance. Mr. Lester was not called back to work for a period lasting well in excess of six months. Mr. Lester alleges that the layoffs violate the WARN Act. He brings his claim on his own behalf and on behalf of all employees subject to layoff from the Pay Car Mine during the relevant time period. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff should be required to amend his complaint to provide a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They argue that the Plaintiff's allegations regarding the Defendants' corporate structure and status as employers are vague, ambiguous, and unclear, and that the Plaintiff failed to allege which Defendant was responsible for each allegation. The Plaintiff argues that the complaint complies with the applicable pleading standard. The Court finds that allegations in the complaint are sufficiently clear to permit a response. The Defendants primarily complain of a lack of clarity regarding which Defendant is allegedly liable. The Plaintiff, the Court finds, clearly pled that the Defendants jointly employed workers at the Pay Car Mine and that representatives of each Defendant were involved in management. To the extent it is unclear which Defendant allegedly took an action, there is no impediment to each Defendant answering the allegation with a denial, affirmation, or explanation, as appropriate. Finally, the Court does not find the allegations regarding the relationship between the Defendants to be at all unclear. Therefore, the motion for a more definite statement should be denied. The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint, asserting that the alleged Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 violations were not timely filed. The Defendants argue that the appropriate statute of limitations on WARN Act violations in West Virginia is two years. The Plaintiff argues that the proper statute of limitations for WARN Act claims in West Virginia is five years, and therefore, the complaint was timely filed and should not be dismissed. The Court finds, as it has on at least two prior occasions, that West Virginia's Wage Payment and Collection Act is the state law most closely analogous to the WARN Act. Thus, the five-year statute of limitations applicable to the WVWPCA also applies to WARN Act claims in West Virginia. Because the Plaintiff filed his complaint within five years of the Defendants' alleged WARN Act violations, his complaint is timely, and the motion to dismiss should be denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yc2klf27from Leagle.com. Dougie Lester, Plaintiff, represented by Bren J. Pomponio, MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC., at 1031 Quarrier Street, Suite 200, Charleston, WV 25301. Dougie Lester, Plaintiff, represented by Samuel Brown Petsonk, MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC. Pay Car Mining, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew L. Ellis, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS, John F. Hussell, IV, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS & John D. Wooton, Jr., THE WOOTON LAW FIRM, 105 Capitol St., Suite 300, Charleston, WV 25301. Bluestone Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew L. Ellis, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS, John D. Wooton, Jr., THE WOOTON LAW FIRM & John F. Hussell, IV, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS. Bluestone Coal Corp., Defendant, represented by Andrew L. Ellis, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS, John D. Wooton, Jr., THE WOOTON LAW FIRM & John F. Hussell, IV, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS. Keystone Service Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew L. Ellis, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS & John D. Wooton, Jr., THE WOOTON LAW FIRM. Keystone Service Industries, Inc., and, Defendant, represented by John F. Hussell, IV, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS. Mechel Bluestone, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew L. Ellis, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS, John F. Hussell, IV, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS & John D. Wooton, Jr., THE WOOTON LAW FIRM. PETCO ANIMAL: "Wagner" Transferred to Southern District of Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Colorado issued an Order granting parties' Memorandum in Support of the Parties' Joint Motion to Transfer for Settlement Purposes Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) in the case captioned ROBERT WAGNER, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiff, v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC., PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES STORES, INC., and PETCO HOLDINGS, INC. LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-cv-00133-PAB-MJW (D. Colo.). Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay or Transfer the Action is denied as moot. This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay or Transfer the Action and the parties' Memorandum in Support of the Parties' Joint Motion to Transfer for Settlement Purposes Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), which the Court construes as a motion to transfer. Section 1404(a) of Title 28 provides, in pertinent part, that, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought. Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an 'individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness. To warrant a transfer, the moving party must establish that: (1) the action could have been brought in the alternate forum; (2) the existing forum is inconvenient; and (3) the interests of justice are better served in the alternate forum. The Colorado Court is satisfied that the Southern District of California is a proper venue for this action because, according to plaintiff's allegations, defendants' principal place of business is located in that district. Thus, in light of the parties' settlement, the Colorado Court finds that considerations of convenience and interests of justice strongly favor the transfer of the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. A full-text copy of the Colorado Court's August 31, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7o48wmefrom Leagle.com. Robert Wagner, Plaintiff, represented by Fran Lisa Rudich -- fran@klafterolsen.com. Klafter Olsen & Lesser, LLP. Robert Wagner, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Hayden Reed -- mhreed@gmail.com -- Klafter Olsen & Lesser, LLP, Seth R. Lesser -- slesser@klafterolsen.com -- Klafter Olsen & Lesser, LLP & Brian David Gonzales, The Law Offices of Brian D. Gonzales, 242 Linden St., Fort Collins, CO 80524-2424 Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rachelle Elizabeth Hill -- rehill@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC & Joshua B. Kirkpatrick -- jkirkpatrick@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rachelle Elizabeth Hill, Littler Mendelson, PC & Joshua B. Kirkpatrick, Littler Mendelson, PC. Petco Holdings, Inc. LLC, Defendant, represented by Rachelle Elizabeth Hill, Littler Mendelson, PC & Joshua B. Kirkpatrick, Littler Mendelson, PC. PHILIPPE NORTH: Court Denies Approval of Preliminary Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Memorandum and Opinion denying Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval in the case captioned OSCAR SANDOVAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PHILIPPE NORTH AMERICAN RESTAURANTS, LLC, et al., Defendants, No. 16-CV-0615 (VSB)(N.Y.S.D.). Plaintiffs and members of the proposed collective action are persons who were employed by Defendants as "Servers," "Bussers," "Runners," "Bartenders," "Barbacks," or similar service "tipped" positions who were not paid the prevailing minimum wage for all hours worked during the full statutory limitations period set by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that Defendants failed to pay minimum wage in violation of the FLSA and NYLL and illegally retained tips, and distributed tips to ineligible employees of gratuities and "charges purported to be gratuities" in violation of the New York Labor Law, Section 190 et seq. District courts have discretion to approve proposed class action settlements. The parties and their counsel are in a unique position to assess the potential risks of litigation, and thus district courts in exercising their discretion often give weight to the fact that the parties have chosen to settle. In FLSA cases, courts in the Southern District of New York routinely reject release provisions that 'waive practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unknown claims and claims that have no relationship whatsoever to wage-and-hour issues. The Court held that this general release provision is overbroad, as it places almost no limitations on Plaintiffs' waiver of claims and requires Plaintiffs to waive virtually any claim, of any type, without regard to whether the claim is related to the wage and hour violations alleged here. The parties offer no basis for finding that this release provision provides Plaintiffs with any legitimate benefit, the Court said. Thus, the provision is not reasonable, and Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary settlement approval must be denied without prejudice, the Court concluded. Because the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary settlement approval, it held that it must also deny without prejudice Plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of the proposed class, appointment of class counsel, and approval of the proposed class notice. For these reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion is denied without prejudice. The parties may proceed by either: 1. Filing a revised settlement agreement on or before October 6, 2017 that cures the deficiencies in the provisions; or 2. Filing a joint letter on or before October 6, 2017, that indicates the parties' intention to abandon settlement, at which point the Court will set a date for a status conference. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017 Memorandum and Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/yctulxg3 from Leagle.com. Oscar Sandoval, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth David Sommer -- ksommer@wigdorlaw.com -- Wigdor LLP. Oscar Sandoval, Plaintiff, represented by David Evan Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP. Juan Aca, Plaintiff, represented by David Evan Gottlieb -- dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com -- Wigdor LLP. Elmer Bonilla, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth David Sommer, Wigdor LLP & David Evan Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP. Felix Maldonado Diaz, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth David Sommer, Wigdor LLP & David Evan Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP. Enrique Flores, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth David Sommer, Wigdor LLP & David Evan Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP. Kerry Nohoth Hernandez-Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth David Sommer, Wigdor LLP & David Evan Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP. Pablo Lainez, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth David Sommer, Wigdor LLP & David Evan Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP. Jose Luis Maldonado Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth David Sommer, Wigdor LLP & David Evan Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP. Kihel Noureddine, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth David Sommer, Wigdor LLP & David Evan Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP. Ignacio Quijano-Aviles, Plaintiff, represented by David Evan Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP. Dave 60 NYC, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie Scott Felsen, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC. 3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3W8, Lake Success, New York 11042. Philippe NYC I LLC, Defendant, represented by Jamie Scott Felsen, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC. Philippe Chow East Hampton LLC, Defendant, represented by Jamie Scott Felsen, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC. Merchants Hospitality, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie Scott Felsen, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC. Philippe Chow Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Jamie Scott Felsen, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC. Philippe Chow Mgmt LLC, Defendant, represented by Jamie Scott Felsen, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC. Philippe Equities LLC, Defendant, represented by Jamie Scott Felsen, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC. Philippe Chow, Defendant, represented by Jamie Scott Felsen, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC. POWERBLOCK INC: Cohen Files Class Action Over Defective Dumbbells ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Cohen, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Powerblock, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17- cv-23230 (S.D. Fla., August 25, 2016), seeks damages, restitution for monies wrongfully obtained and/or disgorgement of ill-gotten revenues and/or profits, reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs of this suit and such other relief under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and a class of persons who purchased PowerBlock Urethane Series Dumbbells that uses a urethane coating on the weight plates that cracks and breaks in warm environments. Said weights often break apart when removed from the rack or column stands, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jon Herskowitz, Esq. BARON & HERSKOWITZ, LLP 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard One Datran Center, Suite 1704 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 670-0101 Facsimile: (305) 670-2393 Email: jon@bhfloridalaw.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. William H. Anderson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 Email: charlesl@cuneolaw.com wanderson@cuneolaw.com PROGRESSIVE CORP: Faces "Camacho" Suit in E.D. of New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Progressive Corporation. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Progressive Corporation and Progressive Specialty Insurance Agency Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:01-cv-00007 (E.D. N.Y., September 14, 2017). The Progressive Corporation is one of the largest providers of car insurance in the United States. The company also insures motorcycles, boats, RVs and commercial vehicles, and provides home insurance through select companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. Gottlieb& Associates 150 East 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Gottlieb & Associates 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com - and - Janet N. Esagoff, Esq. Esagoff Law Group, P.C. 10 Bond Street Great Neck, NY 11021 Tel: (516) 417-7737 Fax: (516) 543-0123 Email: janet@esagoff.com REGENCE BLUESHIELD: "A.Z." Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage -------------------------------------------------------------- A.Z. by and through her parents and guardians, E.Z. and D.Z., individually, and on behalf of the Juno Therapeutics, Inc. Health Benefit Plan, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals and plans, Plaintiff, v. Regence Blueshield and Cambia Health Solutions, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01292, (W.D. Wash., August 25, 2017), seeks recovery of benefits, clarification of rights under terms of the plans, damages for failure to provide benefits due under the Plan as modified by the Federal Parity Act and certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act, attorney fees and costs resulting from breach of fiduciary duties and for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. A.Z. is the 16-year-old daughter and dependent of E.Z. and D.Z. as employees of Juno Therapeutics, Inc. Health Benefit Plan. Said plan is a group health plan that provides both medical/surgical benefits and mental health/substance use disorder benefits. Plaintiff seeks outdoor/wilderness behavioral healthcare programs deemed medically necessary to treat a mental health condition. This coverage was denied by the Defendants. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Lewis, Esq. JORDAN LEWIS, P.A. 4473 N.E. 11th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 Telephone: (954) 616-8995 Facsimile: (954) 206-0374 Email: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com - and - Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2560 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel. (206) 223-0303 Fax. (206) 223-0246 Email: rspoonemore@sylaw.com ehamburger@sylaw.com ROCKIT RANCH: Bernal Seeks to Stop Collection of Biometric Info --------------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE BERNAL, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. ROCKIT RANCH PRODUCTIONS, INC., an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2017CH12364 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to stop Defendant's capture, collection, use, and storage of employee's biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. A "biometric identifier" is any personal feature that is unique to an individual and includes 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. Rockit Ranch is a restaurant and nightclub development and management company specializing in entertainment marketing, promotions, and branding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Myles McGuire, Esq. Evan M. Meyers, 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: mmcguire@mcgpc.com emeyers@mcgpc.com wkingston@mcgpc.com RSH LIQUIDATING: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Toscano" ------------------------------------------------------ The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the adversary proceeding captioned In re: RS LEGACY CORPORATION, et. al., Chapter 11, Reorganized Debtors. FABIOLA TOSCANO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE RSH LIQUIDATING TRUST, PETER KRAVITZ, Liquidating Trustee, et. al., Defendants, Case No. 15-10197 (BLS), (Jointly Administered), Adv. Pro. No. 16-51033 (BLS)(Bankr. D.Del.). Before the Court are Motions to Dismiss filed by Peter Kravitz, the Liquidating Trustee of the RSH Liquidating Trust (Liquidating Trustee), and by General Wireless Operations, Inc. and General Wireless Inc. (General Wireless), both of which seek to dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Fabiola Toscano (Plaintiff). Ms. Toscano worked for RadioShack in Southern California and then for General Wireless. Ms. Toscano filed this adversary proceeding on behalf of herself, as a former employee of the Debtors seeking money for unpaid accrued time off, and on behalf of a putative class of those situated similarly to her. Ms. Toscano's Complaint alleges that she and putative class members were deprived of payment of wages after General Wireless acquired RadioShack in March 2015 and refused to honor the previously earned vacation pay. The Bankruptcy Court finds that Ms. Toscano has failed to articulate claims against General Wireless where the undisputed record reflects that General Wireless acquired the Debtors' assets "free and clear" of claims under Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code. The clear language of the Asset Purchase Agreement and the Bankruptcy Court's sale order serves to limit liability for the buyer, who explicitly did not assume the obligations asserted by Ms. Toscano. The First Amended Complaint does not advance any allegations as to the asset purchase being fraudulent Ms. Toscano first makes this claim, without factual support, in her Opposition. Without any further theory or facts explaining why the sale order under the APA should not control in this case, the First Amended Complaint as against General Wireless must be dismissed. For these reasons, the Motions are granted. A full-text copy of the Bankruptcy Court's August 31, 2017 Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y92r39q3from Leagle.com. RS Legacy Corporation, et al., Debtor, represented by Edward Kerney Black, Delaware Department of Justice, Michael Joseph Custer, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Michael Joseph Custer, Pepper Hamilton LLP, David M. Fournier, Pepper Hamilton LLP, David M. Fournier, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Christopher Fuhrman, Pelzer Law Firm, Robert W. Gaffey, Jones Day, Basheer Ghorayeb, Jones Day, Gregory M. Gordon, Jones Day, Paul M. Green, Jones Day, David G. Heiman, Jones Day, Thomas A. Howley, Jones Day, Evelyn J. Meltzer, Pepper Hamilton LLP & Dan B. Prieto, Jones Day. U.S. Trustee, U.S. Trustee, represented by Richard L. Schepacarter, Office of the United States Trustee. Prime Clerk, Claims Agent, represented by Benjamin Joseph Steele, Prime Clerk LLC. Peter Kravitz, as Liquidating Trustee, Liquidating Trustee, represented by Sarah Ann Carnes -- scarnes@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Stephen Brett Gerald -- sgerald@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor Preston LLC, Jason A. Gibson, The Rosner Law Group LLC, 440 Louisiana St Ste 2400, Houston, TX 77002-4205, L. Katherine Good kgood@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor & Preston LLC, Evan M. Lazerowitz -- elazerowitz@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Chantelle D'nae McClamb -- MCCLAMBC BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP, Frederick Brian Rosner, The Rosner Law Group LLC, Christopher M. Samis -- csamis@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLC, Aaron H. Stulman -- astulman@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLC & Scott J. Leonhardt, The Rosner Law Group LLC, 1000 North West StreetSuite 1200Wilmington, DE 19801. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Creditor Committee, represented by Kendra K. Bader -- kbader@askllp.com -- Ask LLP, Kara E. Casteel- kcasteel@askllp.com -- ASK Financial LLP, Jeffrey Lawrence Cohen -- jcohen@ccealaw.com -- Lowenstein Sandler LLP, Benjamin Finestone- benjaminfinestone@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Alex Govze, ASK LLP, Cathy Hershcopf, Cooley LLP, Daniel S. Holzma -- danielholzman@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Jay R. Indyke -- jindyke@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Richard S. Kanowitz -- rkanowitz@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Susheel Kirpalani -- susheelkirpalani@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver Hedges LLP, Michael Klein -- mklein@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Robert S. Loigman -- robertloigman@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Brigette G. McGrath -- bmcgrath@askllp.com -- ASK LLP, Edward E. Neiger -- eneiger@askllp.com -- ASK LLP, William Pugh, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Kate Scherling, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Joseph L. Steinfeld -- jsteinfeld@askllp.com -- Jr., ASK LLP, James C. Tecce -- jamestecce@quinnemanuel.com -- Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Marianna Udem -- mudem@askllp.com -- ASK LLP, Gary D. Underdahl -- gunderdahl@askllp.com -- ASK LLP & Seth Van Aalten -- svanaalten@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP. SHAPIRO VAN: "Brown" Suit Disputes Collection Letter ---------------------------------------------------- Traci Brown, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Shapiro, Van Ess & Sherman, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02886, (D. Ariz., August 25, 2017), seeks actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Brown's alleged obligation arises from a mortgage loan for her residence which the Defendant attempted to collect. Defendant's November 9, 2016 letter states the amount of the debt as $66,927.27 but also states "because of interest, late charges and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater," therefore failing to state the exact amount of the debt to the debtor. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Russell S. Thompson IV, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (602) 388-8898 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 Email: rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com - and - Joseph Panvini, Esq. Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (602) 388-8875 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 Email: jpanvini@consumerlawinfo.com SHORETEL INC: "Herrera" Suit Seeks to Halt Merger Deal with Mitel ----------------------------------------------------------------- Armando Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Shoretel, Inc., Shane Robison, Don Joos, Marjorie Bowen, Mark Bregman, Kenneth Denman, Charles Kissner, Constance Skidmors and Josef Vejvoda, Shelby Acquisition Corporation, Mitel US Holdings, Inc., and Mitel Networks Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04988, (N.D. Cal., August 28, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of ShoreTel by Mitel Networks Corporation, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger. The lawsuit further seeks costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, shareholders of ShoreTel will receive $7.50 in cash for each share. The merger documents omitted the company's financial projections and the analyses critical in evaluating the company's offer price. Defendants also agreed to certain deal protection provisions in the merger agreement that operate conjunctively to deter other prospects from submitting a superior offer for ShoreTel. ShoreTel is engaged in the design, development, marketing, and sale of business communication solutions. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 Email: rickert@whafh.com - and - Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Email: gmn@whafh.com kaufmann@whafh.com kcooper@whafh.com SHOWTIME NETWORKS: "Mallh" Sues Over Bad Pay-Per-View Live Stream ----------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Mallh, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Showtime Networks Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06549, (S.D. N.Y., August 28, 2017), seeks all actual, consequential, statutory and/or treble damages, including restitution interest and disgorgement of all amounts paid by Plaintiff for breach of contract, consumer fraud, and unjust enrichment. Mallh paid $99.95 to view live stream of the Floyd Mayweather, Jr. and Conor McGregor boxing match on www.showtimeppv.com. Plaintiff was not able to view a substantial portion of the event as the Defendant's service continually logged. Plaintiff has not yet received a refund, the complaint asserts. Showtime Networks Inc. is a subsidiary of media conglomerate CBS Corporation and owns CBS's premium cable television channels. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Orin Kurtz, Esq. Mark C. Gardy, Esq. Tower 56 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 905-0509 Fax: (212) 905-0508 SUSHI MARU: "Chun" Alleges Retaliation for Whistle-Blowing ---------------------------------------------------------- Lois Chun, Plaintiff, v. Sushi Maru Express Corp., Sushi Nara, Komolo, Inc. and Kevin Kim, Defendants, Case No. 2:17- cv-06411 (D. N.J., August 25, 2017), demands for himself and all others who are similarly situated on whose behalf this action is brought, compensatory, punitive and liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, legal fees, other professional fees, costs and any other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey State Labor Law. Sushi Maru operates a sushi counter inside a supermarket or specialty market under a profit-sharing agreement where Chun was hired as a "Marketing Employee," in charge of new business development. Plaintiff reported unsanitary practices in the stores and reported this to upper management. Defendants eventually cut her off from the chain of communication and disregarded her verbal reports about unsanitary food preparation, handling and food storage including transportation practices. Retaliatory actions against her worsened to a point where she was forced to stop going to work and eventually terminated. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Kimm, Esq. KIMM LAW FIRM 333 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 106 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Tel: (201) 569-2880 STEPHEN FRENZ: Lawsuit Blocks Sale of Apartment Buildings --------------------------------------------------------- Randy Furst, writing for Star Tribune, reports that facing legal pressure by a coalition of tenants and the city of Minneapolis, embattled landlord Stephen Frenz said in court that he has sold all of his apartment buildings. The sale, which could include more than 40 apartment buildings, has touched off another major legal confrontation. Tenant lawyers with Faegre Baker Daniels asked the Hennepin County District Court in a new lawsuit filed to either void the sale of 17 of the properties, place them in receivership or put them under control of the court. The lawyers indicated they will try to block the sale of other properties as they get more information about the transactions. The lawsuit alleges Frenz is committing fraud by transferring his properties to avoid paying tens of million dollars from an earlier class-action suit. "We're concerned that the sales [of the properties] are designed to deprive tenants of the damages they are due," said Michael Cockson, a Faegre lawyer. Frenz has more than 60 apartment buildings, but 17 have been recently wrested from him by lenders who have begun foreclosure proceedings against him. That left him with approximately 45 properties, all of which may have been sold, based on Frenz's testimony. Frenz refused to respond to questions about the sale On September 7. His attorney, Douglass Turner, Esq. of Hanbery & Turner, P.A. declined to comment. In the hearing, Frenz tried to reverse a recommendation by the city's regulatory services decision to revoke his rental licenses on all his properties. City officials have accused Frenz of secretly sharing ownership of his rental properties with landlord Spiros Zorbalas, who was banned by the council in 2011 from holding rental licenses for five years. The ban was initiated after the city revoked licenses on three of his apartment buildings. Frenz told the city that he bought the buildings from Zorbalas and that Zorbalas no longer had a financial interest. But records, first revealed in a housing court case last year, disclosed that Zorbalas and Frenz created new corporate entities that have ownership of the buildings. In some of them, Zorbalas had 80 percent ownership. "This represents an unprecedented and elaborate fraud against the city," said Lindsey Middlecamp, an assistant city attorney, in opening remarks. Turner called the allegations "repeated misrepresentations by the city," and accusing it "of a continuation of a smear campaign" against Frenz. Turner argued that Frenz had complete power over operation of the buildings, free of control by Zorbalas, and Zorbalas' ownership interest in the properties was irrelevant. Frenz said the lines of control are spelled out in an operating agreement between Frenz and Zorbalas that Turner has declined to make public. However, in a court memorandum, Judge Mary Vasaly indicated Zorbalas retained significant financial controls. Seventeen of Frenz's current buildings recently went into receivership after financial lenders concluded Frenz failed to disclose to them that Zorbalas remained an owner. The first class-action lawsuit alleges that his tenants, who number more than 1,000, faced a history of neglect under Frenz, including vermin, pest infested apartments and a lack of repairs. In the latest class-action suit, the same lawyers allege that Frenz's corporate entities and the companies that bought his buildings have violated state law by transferring the ownership of the properties to defraud tenants who sued him. The suit argues it is a way for Frenz to avoid paying damages if he loses the first- class action suit. Earlier, Cockson indicated the payout to the tenants, much of it in the form of rent reimbursement, could total $20 million. The hearing adjourned on September 7 without testimony from Zorbalas, who flew to Florida -- where he now lives and owns rental properties -- because of Hurricane Irma. The hearing resumes on September 12. Zorbalas is expected to testify by Skype or via telephone. After testimony concludes, hearing officer Danielle Mercurio has 30 days to issue a decision on whether to uphold the revocation orders, which will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. [GN] SUBWAY: Sued for Improperly Collecting Soft Drink Tax ----------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that while class actions continue to stack up against retailers accused of improperly collecting Cook County's new so-called "pop tax," one of the law firms bringing those suits has also popped two new class action suits under Chicago's "soft drink tax," as well. In the lawsuits filed Sept. 1, attorneys with the Zimmerman Law Offices in Chicago have accused Subway restaurants in the city and the company that operates concessions and restaurants at O'Hare International Airport of wrongly charging the city's 3 percent tax on purchases of fruit juice. Both of the lawsuits were filed by the Zimmerman firm on behalf of the same plaintiff, identified as Mark Wallace, against Doctor's Associates, the company which serves as the franchisor for Subway restaurants, and against concessionaire HMS Host. The Maryland-based HMS operates concessions and restaurants under a variety of brands at O'Hare and at several Illinois Tollway oasis rest stops in the Chicago area. According to the lawsuits, Wallace purchased 100 percent juice drinks at Subway restaurants in Chicago and at a concession or restaurant operated by HMS Host in August. On those occasions, the lawsuits allege, the retailers charged him the city's 3 percent tax on non-alcoholic beverages, which, they claim, is only intended to apply to beverages with added "natural or artificial sweeteners." The lawsuits don't specify the locations at which Wallace bought the juice drinks and was charged the tax. According to the lawsuits, Wallace purchased an orange juice and a "100 percent juice smoothie beverage" at the HMS Host location, paying an additional 24 cents on the $7.88 price for the drinks. Wallace claims he paid an addition 5 cents in tax on his purchase of an orange juice at Subway. The lawsuits ask the court to expand the cases to include anyone who was improperly charged the taxes on similar juice beverage purchases at either a Chicago Subway or at a Chicago property operated by HMS Host. The lawsuits ask the court to order the defendants to pay actual damages, plus attorney fees. The lawsuits come in the wake of the filing of seven class action lawsuits against Subway and other retailers by lawyers asserting they had erred in charging Cook County's controversial penny-per- ounce sweetened beverage tax since that tax took effect at the beginning of August. The Zimmerman firm, a regular filer of class action lawsuits in Cook County courts and elsewhere, had brought two of those lawsuits related to the Cook County tax, hitting 7-Eleven and Subway's corporate entity. [GN] TACI INVESTMENTS: "Hankton" Suit Seeks to Certify Managers Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DOMINIQUE HANKTON, and WILLIE RAY DAVIS, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiffs, v. TACI INVESTMENTS, INC., a Texas Corporation, KAMAL P. SINGH, SANJAY MEHRA, MOHAMMAD H. TILY, and REFEICK ALI, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 06441-NJB-JCW (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify a class of: "all salaried assistant managers employed by all or any of the Defendants at any time from September 13, 2014, through the present who may have worked over 40 hours in at least one workweek and who are and/or were paid the same rate or amount for all hours worked, including hours over 40". The individuals comprising this class have been subject to Defendants' common policy of misclassification and under compensation because Defendants, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and failed to pay for overtime hours at one-and- one-half times their regular hourly rates. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rvaf8qVQ The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth C. Bordes, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC 2725 Lapeyrouse St. New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 588 2700 Facsimile: (504) 708 1717 E-mail: KCB@KENNETHBORDES.COM - and - Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754 8001 Facsimile: (901) 759 1745 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com TECHNOLOGICAL MEDICAL: "Botelho" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned JENNIFER BOTELHO d/b/a CHIROPRACTIC CENTER OF LOS ANGELES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TECHNOLOGICAL MEDICAL ADVANCEMENTS L.L.C., a Florida limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-08085-SVW-MRW (C.D. Cal.), Ms. Jennifer Botelho will ask the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson on October 30, 2017, for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons in the United States who, (1) from October 31, 2012 through the present, (2) were sent an unsolicited telephone facsimile message from Defendant substantially similar to the faxes sent to Plaintiff, (3) where Defendant acquired the recipient's fax number from the Stack Creations "Contact List", (4) and where the faxes were sent using the same equipment that was used to transmit the faxes to Plaintiff"; 2. appointing Plaintiff Botelho as Class Representative; and 3. appointing the law firms of Woodrow & Peluso, LLC and The Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, P.A. as Class Counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=10VjrlhF The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter J. Gimino III, Esq. THE GIMINO LAW OFFICE, APC 18101 Von Karman Ave., Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 225 4446 Facsimile: (949) 225 4447 E-mail: pgimino@giminolaw.com TIME WARNER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Suvino" ------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned DAWN SUVINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., Defendant, No. 16 CV 7046-LTS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), plaintiff Dawn Suvino brings this putative class action against Defendant Time Warner Cable, Inc., asserting violations of Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq. (ADA). Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff is a legally blind individual who the parties agree is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Plaintiff alleges that the Website and the Cable Service are places of public accommodation within the meaning of the ADA, and that she and other legally blind individuals who are customers of TWC are unable to access either the Website or the Cable Service in the same manner as non-disabled individuals. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that TWC has violated the ADA by failing to ensure that the Website is accessible to individuals who use text-to-speech screen reader software to access the Internet. Count I of the Complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief pertaining to the website. Count II seeks the same types of relief with respect to the Cable Service, and Count III seeks declaratory relief with respect to the ADA violations alleged in Counts I and II. Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations" and provides, inter alia, that no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. TWC argues that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has standing to pursue her causes of action because its telephonic access provides a level of service that precludes a claim of irreparable harm insofar as Plaintiff complains of Website deficiencies, and that she lacks standing to complain of the particular Cable Service deficiencies cited in the Complaint because the features she cites are covered by a separate statute, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), which vests enforcement action as to such features in the FCC. See 47 U.S.C. Section 613(j). Neither argument is availing, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded. Title III requires full and equal enjoyment and provides for injunctive relief to compel compliance; the Rule 65 irreparable harm standard is not incorporated into the statute. The sufficiency of the auxiliary aids and services provided by TWC is a matter for litigation at a later stage of this proceeding. Nor does the CVAA contain on its face any indication of Congressional intent to supersede the ADA's general prohibitions of discrimination and requirements of accommodations and auxiliary aids. Defendant's motion to dismiss is therefore denied to the extent it seeks dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). It is also denied to the extent it seeks dismissal of Counts I and II of the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Count III, which requests declaratory relief is, however, dismissed as redundant of the claims asserted in Counts I and II, and Counts I and II are dismissed insofar as they seek damages, which are not available for violations of Title III of the ADA. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yccqbxjvfrom Leagle.com. Dawn Suvino, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Levine -- nlevine@ssbny.com -- Stull Stull & Brody. Time Warner Cable, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Schoolman -- jschoolman@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Jonathan David Their -jthier@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP & Peter James Linken -- plinken@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP. TOP SHIPS: Oct. 23 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Top Ships Inc. (NASDAQ:TOPS) who purchased securities between January 17, 2017 and August 22, 2017. The action, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws. In particular, the complaint alleges that Top Ships' CEO, Evangelos J. Pistiolis caused Top Ships to engage in a series of manipulative shares issuance/sales transactions with Kalani Investments Limited and certain of its entities. These transactions allowed Top Ships to finance related-party transactions and acquisitions that primarily benefited Pistiolis, his related companies, and other Company insiders. Shareholders have until October 23, 2017 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to be an absent class member. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-sbm/top-ships-inc?wire=3. Joseph Klein, Esq. is an experienced attorney and has also practiced as a Certified Public Accountant. Mr. Klein represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] TRIAD OF ALABAMA: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Partly Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Southern Division, issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration on class Certification Order in the case captioned BRADLEY S. SMITH, JULIE S. McGEE, ADAM PARKER, MICHAEL HALL, and JACK WHITTLE, Plaintiffs, v. TRIAD OF ALABAMA, LLC, d/b/a FLOWERS HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 1:14-CV-324-WKW (M.D. Al.). The motion is denied insofar as it seeks decertification of the class and the motion is granted insofar as it seeks redefinition of the class. The motion is granted insofar as it seeks redefinition of the class. Defendant Triad of Alabama (Flowers or the Hospital) makes three arguments in support of denying certification to the nascent class: 1. First, that a typo in the court's certification order compels reconsideration 2. Second, that the breach-of-contract subclasses will create administrative and evidentiary headaches; and 3. Third, that the implied-contract theory is just strict liability by another name. First, on page eighteen of the certification order, the court referred to Kamarian Millender's first month of employment with the Hospital as June 2012 rather than June 2013. Flowers jumps on this error and claims that (to paraphrase the old proverb) for want of a keystroke, the opinion was lost.1But this is not so. The misstated date is clearly a typo, as evidenced by the earlier reference to Millender's actual start date of June 2013. The typo, while unfortunate, is no basis to reconsider certification. Second, Flowers points to the administrative and evidentiary issues that supposedly inhere in the breach-of-contract subclasses. This argument works along two tracks: that administrative issues would make the class unmanageable and that individualized evidentiary issues defeat predominance. Addressing the evidentiary argument first, the court stands by its conclusion that Plaintiffs have satisfied the predominance prong of subsection (b)(3). Flowers pushes on the varied relationships between the Hospital and the class members, arguing that a finding of liability hinges on individualized aspects of those relationships. The certification opinion addressed the minor nature of these individual issues, which orbit around" the common questions of contractual formation and breach. The Court finds that Flowers fails to identify any individualized factual issues that cannot be resolved along with causation and damages in the second phase of this case. Its arguments therefore do not affect the conclusion that Plaintiffs have established 23(b)(3) predominance. Failure to certify an action under Rule 23(b)(3) on the sole ground that it would be unmanageable is disfavored and 'should be the exception rather than the rule. And because predominance of common issues makes class resolution more desirable, a court would be hard pressed to conclude that a class action is less manageable than individual actions" after finding predominance. Williams, 568 F.3d at 1358 (Klay, 382 F.3d at 1273). Third, Flowers argues that a finding of liability under Plaintiffs' implied-contract theory would effectively and unjustifiably impose strict liability on the Hospital. This goes to the merits of Plaintiffs' claims and will not impact the common or individualized character of the evidence presented; accordingly, it is not properly before the court at the certification stage. The class is redefined as follows: "All non-hospital patients of Flowers Hospital, as defined on page four of the certification order, whose personal identifying information or protected health information was stolen or may have been stolen from Flowers Hospital by Kamarian Millender and/or his accomplices. Excluded from the class are the owners, officers, directors, employees, agents and/or representatives of Defendant and its parent entities, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, and/or assigns, and the court, court personnel, and members of their immediate families." A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ydym8wt6from Leagle.com. Bradley S. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Sims Davis, M. Adam Jones & Associates, 206 Lena St., Dothan, Alabama 36303 Bradley S. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Adam Jones, M. Adam Jones & Associates, LLC, 206 Lena St., Dothan, Alabama 36303, & James Michael Terrell -- jterrell@mmlaw.net -- McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC. Julie S. McGee, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Sims Davis, M. Adam Jones & Associates, Mark Adam Jones, M. Adam Jones & Associates, LLC & James Michael Terrell, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC. Adam Parker, Plaintiff, represented by James Michael Terrell, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Jordan Sims Davis, M. Adam Jones & Associates & Mark Adam Jones, M. Adam Jones & Associates, LLC. Jack Whittle, Plaintiff, represented by James Michael Terrell, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Jordan Sims Davis, M. Adam Jones & Associates & Mark Adam Jones, M. Adam Jones & Associates, LLC. Michael Hall, Plaintiff, represented by James Michael Terrell, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Jordan Sims Davis, M. Adam Jones & Associates & Mark Adam Jones, M. Adam Jones & Associates, LLC. Triad of Alabama, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathan William Macklem -- jwmacklem@csattorneys.com -- Christian & Small LLP, Joseph Paul Zimmerman & Richard Earl Smith -- resmith@csattorneys.com -- Christian & Small, LLP. TURN INC: Plaintiffs' Litigation Strategy Avoids Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------ Zuzana Ikels, writing for National Law Review, reports that on September 5, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's decision granting Turn Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration of a putative, privacy class action related to targeted adverting efforts on mobile devices. In Re Anthony Henson and William Cintron v. Turn, Inc. was filed in the Northern District of California by two Verizon cellular and data subscribers against Turn. The case reflects a notable pivot in strategy in data privacy litigation. Data privacy cases have, previously, been directed at the webpage/content-providers or telecommunication providers that shared or processed users' online activities. The plaintiffs in Henson did not sue Verizon or the webpages; instead, they sued the technology companies that enable the targeting. The Circuit describes Turn as a "middle-man" for internet-based advertisements. Turn is alleged to contract with Verizon to deliver targeted advertisements to subscribers based on usage data collected from users' mobile devices. Plaintiffs' charging allegations focus on Turn's creation of "zombie" cookies that track and collect users' data without their permission or knowledge, which can bypass users' attempts to shield their identity and online activity from companies' tracking, scraping and collecting their data and privacy. Plaintiffs alleged that Turn created unique identifiers and developed profiles for each user, based on their online activity. Turn would then auction off the users' collected data so that advertisers could place targeted advertisements on users' mobile phones. Verizon received a portion of the advertisement proceeds. Turn moved to stay the action and compel arbitration based on the user agreements with Verizon under the theory of equitable estoppel. The district court granted Turn's motion. The Ninth Circuit granted a writ and vacated the order. The choice-of-law question and posture of the case brings back memories of a law school examine. Although the case was pending in the Northern District of California, the two plaintiffs were New York residents asserting violations of New York law. The presiding district court judge was sitting by designation from Arizona. (Warning, students, this is a red herring!) The district court applied New York procedural law in compelling arbitration. The Ninth Circuit held this was clear error, holding the forum state, California, governed. The Circuit found that Turn could not compel arbitration as to the plaintiffs, given it did not have a direct arbitration agreement with them. The Circuit found Turn's attempt to piggyback off Verizon's arbitration agreement with its subscribers was unpersuasive in light of Turn's contract with Verizon, which expressly stated that "neither party shall have the authority to bind the other in any way." Turn filed its agreement with Verizon under seal, which the Circuit went out of its way to deny, implying that the motion to seal was an attempt to hide the contract terms because they contradicted the representations that Turn made to the Court about its relationship with Verizon. Regardless, the Circuit held that the complained-of-conduct by Turn had little to do with the customer agreement with Verizon, undermining a key element of the equitable estoppel doctrine. [GN] U.S. TOBACCO: Court Preliminarily Certifies Settlement Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled TERESA M. SPEAKS, TOBY SPEAKS, STANLEY SMITH, EDDIE BROWN, ROBERT POINDEXTER, MIKE MITCHELL, ROY L. COOK, ALEX SHUGART, H. RANDLE WOOD, ROBIN ROGERS and DANIEL LEE NELSON, the Plaintiffs, v. U.S. TOBACCO COOPERATIVE, INC. f/k/a FLUE-CURED TOBACCO COOPERATIVE STABILIZATION CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 5:12-CV-00729-D (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. James C. Dever entered an order: 1. preliminarily certifying, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class: "all individuals, proprietorships, partnerships, corporations and other entities that are or were shareholders and/or members of U.S. Tobacco at any time during the Class Period, without any exclusion, including any heirs, representatives, executors, powers-of-attorney, successors, assigns or others purporting to act for or on their behalf with respect to U.S. Tobacco and/or the Settled Claims"; 2. appointing Named Plaintiffs as class representatives for the Settlement Class; 3. appointing Class Counsel as Settlement Class Counsel: Gary K. Shipman, Esq. SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP 575 Military CutoffRoad, Suite 106 Wilmington, NC 28405 - and - N. Leo Daughtry, Esq. DAUGHTRY, WOODARD, LAWRENCE & STARLING, LLP 403 E. Market Street Smithfield, NC 27577 A final settlement approval is set for Jan. 19, 2018. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hZmFPyTl VITAMIN SHOPPE: "Aguilar" Sues Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------- Ivan I. Aguilar, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., Richard L. Markee, Colin F. Watts and Brenda M. Galgano, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06510 (D.N.J., August 28, 2017), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Vitamin Shoppe operates as a specialty retailer and direct marketer of nutritional products in the United States. According to the complaint, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding profitability trends and financial results. It had allegedly delayed recognizing a $168 million impairment charge to the carrying value of its retail sector, related to goodwill. As a consequence, Vitamin Shoppe's income and assets were materially overstated during the first and second fiscal quarters of 2017 artificially-inflating the price of Vitamin Shoppe common stock on these misstatements. However, on August 9, 2017, Vitamin Shoppe announced that it was taking a $168 million impairment charge on the goodwill being carried on its books for its retail segment resulting in a $6.73 loss per share. The price of Vitamin Shoppe common stock plunged further on this news, falling $3.50 per share to close at $6.10 per share, on unusually high trading volume of more than 5.1 million shares trading. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, PC 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Tel: (973) 994-1700 - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 WELLS FARGO: "Conklin" Suit Hits Additional Insurance Premiums -------------------------------------------------------------- Gene Conklin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a Wells Fargo Dealer Services, and National General Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04975 (N.D. Cal., August 25, 2017), seeks injunctive relief, prohibiting Defendants from enforcing expensive mandatory insurance policies, treble and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, statutory costs, and such other and further relief under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Wells Fargo had illegally forced borrowers who already had their own car insurance to borrow money to pay additional premiums on expensive insurance policies, in coordination with National General Insurance, says the complaint. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association doing business as Wells Fargo Dealer Services that provides auto lending services. National General Insurance Company is a national insurance agency incorporated in Missouri, with its primary place of business in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Michael L. Schrag, Esq. Aaron Blumenthal, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com mls@classlawgroup.com ab@classlawgroup.com VOLKSWAGEN AG: Blevins Sues Over Anti-trust Activities ------------------------------------------------------ Staci Blevins, Sergey Bogomolov, Richard Haugan, Dale Talbot, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi of America, LLC, Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz US International, Inc., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW North America, LLC, also referred to as the "German Five," Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06417, (D.N.J., August 25, 2017), seeks redress for antitrust violations under the Sherman Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Defendants have reportedly been secretly colluding with each other since the 1990s on matters ranging from car development, gasoline engines, diesel engines, brakes, transmissions, gearboxes, choices of suppliers, emissions controls and even prices for parts. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, PC 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Tel: (973) 994-1700 WELK RESORT: Experian Directed to File Supplemental Explanation --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued an Order directing Experian Information Solutions, Inc., to file supplemental explanation whether compelling reasons standard applies to the motion to seal in the case captioned JOHN E. ASHCRAFT, Plaintiff(s), v. WELK RESORT GROUP, CORP, et al., Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-02978-JAD-NJK (D. Nev.). Pending before the Court is a sealing motion related to briefing on the motion to strike Experian's errata to its Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony. Experian seeks to keep the information secret based on the good cause standard applicable to non-dispositive motions. The Ninth Circuit has clarified that the terms dispositive and non-dispositive are not intended to be mechanical classifications. Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 109. In this case, the dispute to be resolved in the motion to strike relates to Experian's Rule 30(b)(6) testimony on an issue that undergirds, inter alia, Plaintiff's proposed class action allegations. The parties have failed to address whether the motion to strike is more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action, such that the more demanding compelling reasons" standard applies to the motion to seal. Experian is accordingly directed to file a supplement explaining (1) whether the compelling reasons standard applies to the instant motion to seal and, if the Court determines that it does apply, (2) whether compelling reasons exist sufficient to justify sealing the material. Plaintiff is not required to file anything further regarding the motion to seal, but he may also file a supplement on these issues if he would like to do so. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yb6k6xv5from Leagle.com. John E. Ashcraft, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew I. Knepper -- matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com -- Knepper & Clark, LLC. John E. Ashcraft, Plaintiff, represented by Miles N. Clark -- miles.clark@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark LLC, Sean N. Payne, PAYNE LAW FIRM LLC, 9550 South Eastern Avenue, Las Vegas, NV 89123 & David H. Krieger -- info@hainesandkrieger.com -- Haines & Krieger, LLC. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael Cummings -- acummings@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice & Jennifer L. Braster -- jbraster@naylorandbrasterlaw.com -- Naylor & Braster. WELLS FARGO: Boone Files RICO Class Action in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------- Blaine Boone, Dianne Neal and Robert Neal, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a Wells Fargo Dealer Services, and National General Insurance Company, Dawn Martin Harp, Bill Katafias and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01473 (C.D. Cal., August 28, 2017), seeks injunctive relief, prohibiting Defendants from enforcing expensive mandatory insurance policies, treble and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, statutory costs, and such other and further relief under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The complaint says Wells Fargo had illegally forced borrowers who already had their own car insurance to borrow money to pay additional premiums on expensive insurance policies, in coordination with National General Insurance. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association doing business as Wells Fargo Dealer Services that provides auto lending services. National General Insurance Company is a national insurance agency incorporated in Missouri, with its primary place of business in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Germain, Esq. ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP 16311 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436-2152 Telephone: (818) 788-0877 Facsimile: (818) 788-0885 Email: Germain@Lalawyer.com ********* 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 * * *