/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170927.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 27, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 191 Headlines AARON'S INC: Court Dismisses "Aguirre" Wage and Hours Class Suit AARONS INC: Oct. 16 Hearing to Approve "Korrow" Suit Settlement ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Class Action Appeal ACH FOOD: Sells Half-Full Baking Mix Cans, Class Action Says APPLE HOSPITALITY: Court Prepared to Approve Deal in "Moses" APPLE HOSPITALITY: Settlement Class Preliminarily Certified APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Powerbeats Headphones APPLE INC: Confidential Accord in "Lusson" Suit Okayed AVEO GROUP: Residents Push for Curb on Contracts in Class Action BALTIMORE, MD: P. Harrell Can't Intervene in Class Suit BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Disclosures BELLAMY AUSTRALIA: Ct. Bases CA Determination on Litigation Deal BHP BILLITON: Sued Over Failure to Pay Oilfield Workers Overtime BLICK ART: Oct. 5 Hearing in "Andrews" BRASKEM SA: Agrees to Settle U.S. Class Action for $10MM BRISTOL WEST: Sued in Col. Over Automobile Insurance Policies BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification CALIBER HOME: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection CALIFORNIA TANNING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Brown" Suit Says CALYPSO ST. BARTH: Court Approves $145K Class Settlement CARDCONNECT CORP: Sued in Penn. Over Merchant Services Payments CAREMERIDIAN LLC: Hit With CA Over Meal and Rest Break Violations CARLTON MANOR: Class Cert. Bid in "McKinney" Denied as Moot CHARIOTS OF HIRE: Court Conditionally Certifies Class Action CHICAGO, IL: Faces "Aldape" Class Suit Over Eviction Plan CIGNA HEALTH: Faces "Patchell" Class Suit Over ERISA Violation CLAUDINE DE NIRO: "Dilazary" Suit Moved to S.D. New York COM DEV: Court Granted Class Certification Motion in "Tom" Suit COREPOWER YOGA: $1.4MM "Barnard" Class Settlement Has Prelim OK COSMETIC INSTITUTE: Faces CA Over Breast Procedures Complications CPA GLOBAL: Wants to Bring Bentham-Funded CA in Channel Islands CUSTOMER SERVICE: Court Certifies Employees Class in "Elliot" CVS PHARMACY: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Haynes Claims DOMINION DIAMOND: Violates New York and Canadian Law DST SYSTEMS: BOD Sued Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duties EOG RESOURCES: Faces "Qualls" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime EQUIFAX INC: Baltimore Law Firm Leads Class-Action Lawsuit EQUIFAX INC: Lieff Cabraser File Securities Class Suit ERICSSON INC: Nguyen Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code EVERKEPT INC: "Burman" Suit Seeks to Certify Drivers Class FARMERS NEW WORLD: "Olson" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass FCA US: Faces "Budris" Suit in Connecticut Superior Court FGF BRANDS: "Sims" Suit Moved to Central District of California FIRST SOUTH: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Proposed Carolina Merger FLORIDA: Teachers Union Files Potential Class-Action Lawsuit FLORIDA: Court Approves Settlement in Hernia Treatment Suit FORD MOTOR: 4,500 Car Owners Opt Out of Powershift Settlement FORD MOTOR: Beats Class Action Over Defective Vehicle Buybacks FREIGHT HANDLERS: "Burch" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA GE APPLIANCES: $1.2MM Settlement Reached in Class Action GLOBALSCAPE INC: Oct. 10 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set GOOGLE INC: Faces "Gurno" Suit over Wallet Service GOOGLE INC: Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over Gender Pay GRUBHUB: Trial Begins in Delivery Driver's Suit HEALTH INSURANCE: Nov. 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set IDEAL CONCEPTS: "Gould" Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania ILLINOIS HUMAN SERVICES DEPT: Faces Home Health Workers Suit IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Hovermale Seeks to Certify Settlement Class JESSE CASARES: JT's Frames Bid for Class Cert. Terminated as Moot JIM FISCHER: Employee Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification JOHN B SANFILIPPO: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Says Benecol Adheres to Regulation KITE PHARMA: Faces "Berg" Class Suit Over Sale to Gilead Sciences KOHL'S CORP: Renewed Class Certification Bid Terminated as Moot LIFE ALERT: Sued Over Failure to Properly Compensate Employees LINCOLN HILLS, WI: Judge Certifies Youth Prison Class MARKSTEIN BEVERAGE: Faces "Marshall" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MDL 2591: Certification of 12 Corn Producers Classes Sought MORNING CALL: Hernandez Seeks Conditional Class Certification NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: "Wiegand" Remanded to Calif. Super. Court NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Metzger" Suit in S.D. New York NATURES BEST: "Andrade" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California NIKE INC: Judge Dismisses Workers' Suit Over Security Checks NEW YORK: Public Advocate Has No Capacity to Sue, Court Rules NORTHERN MARIANAS: Sept. 27 Retirement Fund Status Hearing Set O'REILLY AUTO: "Davidson" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes PETMED EXPRESS: Faces "Marchese" Suit over Securities Laws PROCTER & GAMBLE: "Brenner" Suit Seeks to Certify Classes PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC: "Rolon" Suit Seeks to Certify Class PURDUE PHARMA: Coventry Joins Class Action Over Opioid Pandemic QUALITY CABLE: "Card" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: "Racies" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes RITA'S WATER: TCPA Suit Class Members to Get Bigger Scoop of $3MM RIVIANA FOODS: NY Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Class Action SCANA CORP: New Suit Seeks Refunds for Failed Nuclear Project SCHMIDT BAKING: "Milles" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SERGEANT'S PET: "Bietsch" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass SELA HEALTHCARE: Cal. App. Affirms Order Dismissing "Zaragoza" SHELL CHEMICAL: Sheila Rowell, et al. Seek to Certify Class SIMPSONS STRONG-TIE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum, OT Wages SNAP INC: Investors Seek to Unseal PowerPoint Presentation SOUTHWEST HARVESTING: Court Grants Settlement Preliminary OK SOUTHWICK INC: Faces "Lay" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SUBWAY: Appeals Court Rejects Footlong Class Action Settlement TABLETOPS UNLIMITED: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA: Motion for Class Certification Denied TENNESSEE: "Sprague" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & 3 Subclasses TITLE SOURCE: "Swamy" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class TWIN RIVERS: Combined Bid for Class Action Certification Denied UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Stricken Without Prejudice UNITED STATES: "Kirwa" Suit Seeks to Certify Class UNITED STATES: Army Corps of Engineers Sued Over Water Releases US DEFENSE DEPARTMENT: Soldiers Sue over Promised Citizenship VACAVILLE, CA: Must Defend Suit over Contaminated Water VECTOR MARKETING: "Donald" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri VETERANS & MEDICAID: "Hanshaw" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA VOCUS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Guidance Downgrade WASHINGTON: Judge Tosses Nursing Home Residents' Class Action WATCH TOWER: Hit With Sexual Abuse Class Action WELLS FARGO: Court Narrows Claims in "Flower" UCL Suit WELLS FARGO: Enters Class Action Settlement WISCONSIN: Suit v. Jon Listcher Wins Class Certification XENITH BANKSHARES: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Union Merger Plan XEROX: Hit With Class Action Over Excessive Leasing Fees ZILLOW GROUP: Oct. 23 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set * Attorney Says Class Action Lawsuits Over 'Soda Pop Tax' Only ********* AARON'S INC: Court Dismisses "Aguirre" Wage and Hours Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court, Southern District of California, issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned CARLOS AGUIRRE, Plaintiff, v. AARON'S INC. DBA AARON'S SALES & LEASE OWNERSHIP, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-0297-L-BLM (S.D. Cal.), however, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint. In the putative wages and hours class action, Defendant Aaron's, Inc., dba Aaron's Sales & Lease Ownership filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a store manager. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misclassified him as exempt, and that, as a result of misclassification, he was not provided meal and rest periods, paid overtime or hourly wages for all hours worked, receive accurate wage statements, forfeited vested vacation pay, and was not timely paid his final wages in violation of numerous provisions of the California Labor Code and the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Based on the alleged violations, Plaintiff also alleges violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. The Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C Section 1331 because Plaintiff alleges a federal claim under the FLSA. A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Dismissal is warranted where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory. To state a claim for violation of the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime provisions under 29 U.S.C. Sections 206 and 207, "at a minimum the plaintiff must allege at least one workweek when he worked in excess of forty hours and was not paid for the excess hours in that workweek, or was not paid minimum wages. Although Plaintiff alleges that he and the putative class members would regularly work between eight to twelve hours per day, he does not allege that he or any of the putative class members worked more than 40 hours in any given week. Plaintiff also does not affirmatively allege that he or any of the putative class members were paid less than their earned regular-time wages at any given time. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not stated a claim for a violation of the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime provisions. The Court must next consider whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend. Rule 15 advises leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires. This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003), In the absence of any apparent or declared reason such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc. the leave sought should, as the rules require, be freely given. Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's eighth cause of action for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. All remaining causes of action are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(3). Plaintiff is granted leave to amend. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybxs4h5efrom Leagle.com. Carlos Aguirre, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group. Carlos Aguirre, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Alistair Segal-- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group. Aaron's, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christian J. Rowley, crowley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Michael W. Stevens, Seyfarth & Shaw LLP & Tatyana Shmygol -- tshmygol@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP. AARONS INC: Oct. 16 Hearing to Approve "Korrow" Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MARGARET KORROW, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AARONS, INC. and John Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 3:10-06317-MAS-LHG (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on October 16, 2017, for entry of an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement, provisionally decertifying certified Class, certifying settlement class, appointing Plaintiff as Settlement Class representatives and her attorneys as Settlement Class Counsel, and scheduling of a Fairness Hearing. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mhvR1mzz The Plaintiff is represented by: THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC 1520 U.S. Hwy 130, Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08920 Telephone: (732) 545 7900 Facsimile: (732) 545 1030 - and - THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MCGINN 20 Nassau Street, Suite 250W-2 Princeton, NJ 08542 Telephone: (732) 937 9400 Facsimile: (800) 931 2408 - and - BEREZOFSKY LAW GROUP, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1300 Philadelphia, PA 19102-1929 Telephone: (215) 557 0099 Facsimile: (856) 667 5133 - and - CUKER LAW FIRM, LLC One Commerce Square, Suite 1120 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 531 2822 ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Class Action Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., on Sept. 13 disclosed that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit signed an order dismissing the plaintiffs' Appeal of their class action lawsuit filed against Accelerate and certain of its executives. Shortly before the Appeal was scheduled to be argued, the plaintiffs/appellants voluntarily requested that their case be dismissed. "This is a case that should have never been brought," said Steven Schatz -- sschatz@wsgr.com -- of Wilson Sonsini who represented Accelerate and its executives. "Accelerate and the individual defendants acted entirely properly. I am pleased that they have been vindicated. They should not have had to bear the distraction and cost of this suit." The lawsuit was filed in March of 2015 against the company, its President and CEO, Lawrence Mehren, and CFO, Steve Reichling, and alleged that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false or misleading statements about the Accelerate Pheno(TM) system, formerly called the BACcel System. The defendants denied all such allegations. In January of last year, the U.S. District Court in Arizona granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case with prejudice. The Appeal was subsequently filed by the plaintiffs challenging the decision of the district court. A year and a half later, after fully briefing the case and on the cusp of oral arguments, the plaintiffs abandoned their Appeal. The plaintiffs -- without seeking a settlement with the defendants -- requested that the Ninth Circuit dismiss their case. The Appeal was docketed as Chang v. Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-CV-00504- SPL (9th Cir. filed Feb. 26, 2016). [GN] ACH FOOD: Sells Half-Full Baking Mix Cans, Class Action Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Rachel Graf, writing for Law360, reports that a proposed class of customers alleged on September 14 in California federal court that food manufacturer ACH Food Companies Inc. purposefully packages baking mix products in opaque containers that are only half full, misrepresenting the items to drive sales. Anthony Buso, who brought the suit, said consumers rely on the size of the nontransparent packaging of Fleischmann's Simply Homemade Baking Mix products to gauge the amount of mix they're buying but that ACH only fills the boxes about halfway. "Consumers believe that the Fleischmann's Simply Homemade Baking Mix product containers are substantially full because they cannot see the actual contents within the nontransparent container," the suit said. Buso claimed that a reasonable consumer would expect the boxes to be "substantially filled with product." He said that he would not have purchased the baking mix had he known that it contained about 50 percent of empty space or slack-fill. Buso and other customers paid full price for the baking mix but received a half-empty product, the complaint alleged. "Plaintiff was surprised and disappointed when he opened the Fleischmann's Simply Homemade Baking Mix Cornbread product to discover that the container had more than 50 percent empty space," the suit said. Buso argued that there is no "practical reason" to package the product with that much empty space. Buso seeks to represent a class of California residents who bought Fleischmann's products in containers with nonfunctional slack- fill. He is alleging violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. Representatives for ACH didn't respond on September 14 to requests for comment. Counsel for Buso also didn't respond on September 14 to requests for comment. Buso is represented by Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. -- sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com -- of Pacific Trial Attorneys. Counsel information for ACH was not available on September 14. The case is Anthony Buso v. ACH Food Companies Inc., case number 3:17-cv-01872, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] APPLE HOSPITALITY: Court Prepared to Approve Deal in "Moses" ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an Opinion ordering counsel in the case captioned SUSAN MOSES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE HOSPITALITY REIT, INC., Defendants, No. 14-CV-3131 (SMG) (E.D.N.Y.), to submit a revised version of the proposed order for preliminary approval of a class settlement and related relief. The parties have also expounded upon why, although the settlement amount reflects only a small percentage of the damages plaintiffs assert they could prove at trial, the litigation risks are sufficiently substantial to conclude that the amount is fair and reasonable. The parties have likewise more thoroughly explained the basis for the allocation plan contemplated by the settlement agreement and that appears to be fair and reasonable as well. Finally, the parties have amended the settlement agreement and both forms of notice to absent class members largely as was discussed during the hearing. Accordingly, the Court is prepared to enter the proposed Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement submitted. Counsel is directed to submit a revised version of the proposed order that includes suggested dates for each relevant event, after contacting my chambers to determine the Court's availability for a final fairness hearing. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017 Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9qnempofrom Leagle.com. Susan Moses, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Gray, Law Offices of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., 460 Park Ave, New York, NY 10022, USA Susan Moses, Plaintiff, represented by James J. Eccleston -- JEccleston@ecclestonlaw.com -- Eccleston Law Offices, P.C., Jeffrey M. Salas, Salas Wang LLC, 155 North Wacker Drive Suite 4250 Chicago, IL, pro hac vice & Christine Elizabeth Goodrich -- cgoodrich@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP. Marsha wilchfort, Plaintiff, represented by Lee Squitieri -- lee@sfclasslaw.com -- Squitieri & Fearon, LLP. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards -- eedwards@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr. -- jmcmahan@glvlawfirm.com -- McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac vice, Marshall Beil -- mbeil@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire Woods LLP & Stanley A. Roberts -- sroberts@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP. Glade M. Knight, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr., McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire Woods LLP. Bryan Peery, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr., McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire Woods LLP. Kent W. Colton, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr., McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire Woods LLP. Glenn W. Bunting, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr., McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire Woods LLP. Ronald A. Rosenfeld, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr., McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire Woods LLP. Anthony Francis Keating, III, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr., McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire Woods LLP. Lisa B. Kern, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr., McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire Woods LLP. Bruce H. Matson, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr., McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire Woods LLP. Michael S. Waters, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr., McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire Woods LLP. Robert M. Wily, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr., McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac vice, Marshall Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire Woods LLP APPLE HOSPITALITY: Settlement Class Preliminarily Certified ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SUSAN MOSES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APPLE HOSPITALITY REIT INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-03131 (SMG) (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Steven M. Gold Court preliminarily certifies a Settlement Class of: "any person in the United States who participated in the DRIPs for Apple REIT Seven and/or Apple REIT Eight from July 17, 2007 to June 27, 2013 inclusive." The Court preliminarily concludes that the Settlement was negotiated in good faith and is fair, reasonable and adequate, subject to proof to this Court's satisfaction in connection with Final Approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Accordingly, the Court hereby preliminarily approves the Settlement. The Court reserves the authority to approve the Settlement with or without modification and with or without further notice of any kind. The Court further reserves the authority to enter its Final Order and Judgment approving the Settlement and dismissing the Claims against Defendant on the merits and with prejudice regardless of whether it has awarded attorneys' fees and expenses. A Final Fairness Hearing (which, from time to time, and without further notice to the Class other than by filing a notice on the docket in the Class Action in advance of the Final Fairness Hearing, may be continued or adjourned by order of this Court) will be held by this Court on January 16, 2018 at 4:30 p.m. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=81WhX3az APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Powerbeats Headphones -------------------------------------------------------- Patently Apple reports that five Plaintiffs from across the U.S. (Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Florida and California) have filed a Class Action lawsuit against Apple. The class action covers 15 counts against Apple regarding defective Powerbeats headphones that fall under four categories of claims: Express Warranty Claims, Implied Warranty Claims, Consumer Protection Statute Claims and Common Law Claims. Nature of the Class Action The following is from the formal complaint under 'Nature of the Class Action: Plaintiffs challenge Defendant's actions in connection with their marketing, advertising and sale of the defective Powerbeats2 and Powerbeats3 headphones ("Powerbeats"). In widespread advertising and marketing campaigns, Apple touts that its costly Powerbeats (which retail for $199.95) are "BUILT TO ENDURE" and are the "BEST HEADPHONES FOR WORKING OUT." Apple repeatedly emphasizes that its Powerbeats are "Sweat & Water Resistant," and employs world-famous professional athletes, including LeBron James and Serena Williams, to promote its Powerbeats in commercials as heavy-duty headphones suited for workouts that can withstand rough treatment and exposure to the elements. In numerous places, including the packaging of the headphones, Defendant represents that Powerbeats 2 have a six-hour rechargeable battery and the Powerbeats 3 have a twelve-hour battery life. But these costly headphones are neither "built to endure" nor "sweat & water resistant" and certainly do not have a battery that lasts for six or twelve hours. Instead, these shoddy headphones contain a design defect that causes the battery life to diminish and eventually stop retaining a charge. Often, after minimal usage, sometimes only days or weeks, the Powerbeats stop accepting a charge and the indicator light blinks red. Then, the Powerbeats will either not power on at all, or will only power on for minutes at a time. Upon information and belief, thousands of users have experienced this identical defect with their Powerbeats after less than a year of use. Plaintiffs and many consumers like them have all experienced the same defect rapidly diminishing battery life and eventual failure to retain a charge after using the Powerbeats during exercise or other light activity. But despite numerous consumer complaints, Apple has not publicly acknowledged the defect or attempted to fix it. Instead, when consumers attempt to take advantage of Apple's one year warranty and return the Powerbeats for a new pair, Apple sends replacement Powerbeats that often contain the exact same defect. Many consumers, including Plaintiffs Deonn Morgan, Jennifer Zielinski, Sophia Ivy, and Kelly Okorocha , have been through several pairs of Powerbeats only to experience the same defect each time. Consumers are therefore caught in a vicious cycle: use, malfunction, replacement, repeat. Apple continues to promote and market its faulty Powerbeats, and continues to profit handsomely from their sale. In so doing, Apple has defrauded the public and cheated its consumers, including Plaintiffs. The Powerbeats' purportedly long lasting battery is a material feature of the product. Powerbeats do not work, and are worthless, unless they are able to retain a charge and the batteries of the Powerbeats are able to last for a reasonable amount of time. Reasonable consumers expect that high-end Bluetooth headphones will continue to function after minimal use. Reasonable consumers, including Plaintiffs, would not have purchased Powerbeats had they known they contained defects that would cause the battery life to rapidly diminish and eventually fail to charge entirely. As a result of the defect in the Powerbeats, Plaintiffs and the proposed class have suffered damages. They purchased Powerbeats that they would not otherwise have bought had they known of the existence of the defect. Moreover, they bought defective Powerbeats that are not worth the price that they paid." The Class Action covers 15 counts under four categories of Claims as follows: Express Warranty Claims COUNT I: - (Breach of Express Warranty--Magnuson Moss Warranty Act--On Behalf of the Nationwide Class and Each Subclass) COUNT II: (Express Warranty--On Behalf of Nationwide Class, and in the Alternative and the California Subclass) COUNT III: (In the Alternative, Breach of Express Warranty on Behalf of Pennsylvania Subclass under 13 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. Sec 2313 and the Florida Subclass Under Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec. 672.313) Implied Warranty Claims COUNT IV: (Breach of the California Song-Beverly Act-Implied Warranty of Merchantability--On Behalf of Nationwide Class and California Subclass) COUNT V: (Violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301et seq.: The Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act-Implied Warranty--On Behalf Of the Nationwide Class and All State Subclasses COUNT VI: (In the Alternative Implied Warranty of Merchantability on Behalf of the State Subclasses for Pennsylvania Under 13 Pa. Con. Stat. Ann. Sec. 2314 and Florida Under Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec. 672.314) COUNT VII: (In the Alternative, Breach of Warranty Against Redhibitory Defects--On Behal of the Louisiana Subclass) Consumer Protection Statute Claims COUNT VIII: (Violation of the CLRA--On Behalf of Nationwide Class) COUNT IX: (Violation of the UCL-On Behalf of Nationwide Class) COUNT X: (In the Alternative, Violation of Florida Consumer Protection Laws--On Behalf of Florida Subclass) COUNT XI: (In the Alternative, Violation of Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Laws-On Behalf of Pennsylvania Subclass) Common Law Claims COUNT XIII: (Common Law Fraud--On Behalf of Nationwide Class) COUNT XIV: (Negligence--On Behalf of Nationwide Class) COUNT XV: (Unjust Enrichment) [GN] APPLE INC: Confidential Accord in "Lusson" Suit Okayed ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San Francisco, on September 6, signed off on a confidential settlement between Apple and 169 iPhone users who claimed a fatal "Error 53" code rendered their devices useless. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria also dismissed the putative class action without prejudice, should others not party to the settlement wish to refile. The case is captioned, NICHOLAS LUSSON, BRYANT KUSHMICK, ALEXANDER SAENZ, JOHN DENOMA, NORA PENNER, JEANMARIE ANAYA, and KENDALL LANGE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case 3:16-cv- 00705-VC(N.D. Cal., September 6, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Darrell L. Cochran, Esq. Jason P. Amala, Esq. Loren A. Cochran, Esq. Christopher E. Love, Esq. PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC 911 Pacific Ave., Ste. 200 Tacoma, WA 98402 Tel: (253) 777-0799 E-mail: darrel@pcvalaw.com jamala@pcvalaw.com loren@pcvalaw.com chris@pcvalaw.com Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.: Matthew D. Powers, Esq. Adam M. Kaplan, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 E-mail: mpowers@omm.com akaplan@omm.com AVEO GROUP: Residents Push for Curb on Contracts in Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Lenaghan, writing for Financial Review, reports that former residents of Aveo are seeking sweeping injunctions to limit how the retirement giant applies its Aveo Way residential contracts in retirement villages, in a Federal Court class action lodged this week. The controversial contracts are at the heart of the litigation, filed in the Melbourne division of the court, which accuses of Aveo of unconscionable conduct and engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct. The class action has been brought by Sydney law firm Levitt Robinson as an open class lawsuit. It was lodged as Melbourne lawyers Maurice Blackburn opened registrations for a separate class action. Through the Aveo Way contracts freehold property held by residents who are selling out of their villages is later bought on leasehold for incoming residents. "Effectively their freehold interest is being sold off as a leasehold so they are getting a price that reflects an inferior interest," Stewart Levitt told The Australian Financial Review. The Levitt Robinson writ seeks compensation from Aveo and also asks the court to condemn Aveo's actions through a series of declarations about its conduct. The lawsuit also seeks a series of injunctions that would curtail how the Aveo Way program is applied. Among those restrictions, it seeks that "full disclosure" be made to residents that the "relevant Aveo manager has an option to purchase any unit exercisable once a sale notice has been given". Also, it seeks an injunction preventing the Aveo Way being implemented without residents being told that no agent need be appointed to sell their unit when it's being purchased by an Aveo manager. Another order is sought to prevent the retirement giant from implementing the Aveo Way in any village "in a manner which unduly or unreasonably prolongs the sale period". The claim notes that "market value" of the original property freehold holdings "would be more than the value" of the Aveo Way style contracts, acquired as leasehold, by the incoming residents. It alleges that "the sole purpose or alternatively the dominant purpose" of introducing the Aveo Way system was to benefit one or more of Aveo, the manager and the real estate agent. The benefits include increasing the manager's "share of exit fees and capital gains" from units sold under the Aveo Way program and by "procuring the payment to the relevant real estate agent of sales commission". The lead plaintiffs in the case are the children of Robert Luke, who bought a unit at the Peregian Springs village in Queensland and has since passed away. The unit was bought for AUD270,000 in 2003 and eventually sold for AUD379,000 with the incoming resident holding the property on a 99-year lease. After all fees including an exit fee were deducted, the Luke estate received a little more than AUD219,000. Aveo is yet to comment on the Levitt Robinson lawsuit. Chief executive Geoff Grady has previously said the operator always acts in the best interests of its residents. "We vigorously deny any suggestion to the contrary and we are confident that we can show that we have at all times met our statutory and other obligations and our commitment to residents," he said previously. The legal moves follow weeks of intense scrutiny and adverse publicity around Aveo's retirement model. The retirement giant responded to that criticism last month, with pledges to simplify its sales contracts and improve its complaints process. [GN] BALTIMORE, MD: P. Harrell Can't Intervene in Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's Order denying Phoenicia Harrell's Motion to Compel Intervention in the appeals case captioned NICOLE ANDREA SMITH; JACQUELINE KIANA MORANT; AMY TOWSON; SARA GARRET; ONNADAY MCINTOSH-GRIGGS; STEPHANIE HARRIS; TAKIRA CARTER; LYNETTE COOPER; SHANAE BARNES; CELESTE ENGLISH; MYRTLE GILBERT; TOWANDA PARKER; TRACEY HOLDEN; ROSENA PRINCE; LASONIA GILBERT; DETRIA ADAMS; SIERRIA WARREN; SHANAE BOLES; KHRYSTYNA KELLEY, All of the above Individually Named Plaintiffs On Behalf of Themselves and all Other Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and VITINA YVETTE THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE CITY; PAUL T. GRAZIANO, Baltimore City Housing Commissioner and Executive Director of the Housing Authority of Baltimore City; THE CITY OF BALTIMORE; MAYOR AND CITY COUNSEL OF BALTIMORE; CHARLES COLEMAN, a/k/a Clinton Coleman; DOUG HUSSY; MICHAEL ROBINSON; DOUG HUSSEY, Defendants-Appellees, and CLINTON COLEMAN; MICHAEL ROBERTSON, Defendants, v. PHOENICIA HARRELL, Movant-Appellant, No. 17-1103 (4th Cir.). Phoenicia Harrell appeals from the district court's order denying her motion to compel intervention into a class action. Harrell is alleging that she and other potential class members did not get proper notice that a phone interview needed to be completed in order to qualify as a member of the class. However, it is undisputed that, in order to properly register as a member of the class, the written registration form was due. It is further undisputed that Harrell's form was postmarked, but not received until after that date. In an effort to show that her registration was timely filed, Harrell relies on the mailbox rule, arguing that her registration was timely postmarked. On appeal, Harrell contends that the district court erred in not compelling Class Counsel to produce documents regarding absent class members who were rejected due to lack of a phone interview and that the district court erred in not decertifying the class due to inadequate notice to Harrell and others. It appears that Harrell is arguing that she was not notified of her rejection from the class until the court had already closed the case, thus preventing her ability to challenge the rejection and uncover other improperly rejected applicants. However, it is undisputed that Harrell was informed of the final fairness and approval hearing, as well as her ability to appear at the fairness hearing or file objections the settlement agreement. Harrell was also given notice of how to ask questions or get more information, and she could have easily determined the status of her application prior to the fairness hearing. It is further undisputed that Harrell did not object to the settlement agreement or the fairness hearing. The district court concluded that Harrell's application was untimely filed and that she failed to show any excusable neglect. Thus, the procedural errors, if any, were merely harmless. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's order. A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' September 11, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8vpzqapfrom Leagle.com. Landon M. White, LAW OFFICE OF LANDON M. WHITE, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant, 2225 Saint Paul Street, 21218, Baltimore, MD, USA Cary J. Hansel, Erienne A. Sutherell, HANSEL LAW, PC, Baltimore, Maryland;, 2514 N Charles St, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA, Carrie Blackburn Riley, BLACKBURN RILEY, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees, 409 Washington Ave, Baltimore, MD 21204, USA BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Disclosures -------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Barclays Plc won the dismissal on Sept. 13 of U.S. class-action litigation by investors who bought its stock just months before the 2008 global financial crisis, and accused it of concealing its exposure to risky debt and an inability to manage credit risks. U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty in Manhattan said investors failed to show that Barclays and underwriters led by Citigroup Inc deceived them when the British bank sold $2.5 billion of American depositary shares in April 2008. Though the shares lost 80 percent of their value by the following March, Judge Crotty said much of that decline could have reflected fallout from the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, the bailout of U.S. insurer American International Group Inc, and government capital injections into other British banks. "In such circumstances, the prospect that the plaintiff's loss was caused by the alleged misrepresentations decreases," Judge Crotty wrote in a 51-page decision. The decision could end 8-1/2 years of litigation, and remove one hurdle as Chief Executive Jes Staley focuses on scaling back Barclays' geographic reach, increasing the bank's emphasis on investment banking, and addressing various regulatory probes, including over the financial crisis. Lawyers for the investors did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Barclays spokeswoman Kerrie Cohen declined to comment, as did Citigroup spokeswoman Danielle Romero-Apsilos. The case is one of many accusing big banks of inflating their share prices by hiding or being too slow to fix souring credits on their balance sheets. Barclays wrote off 2.8 billion pounds ($3.7 billion) on subprime mortgages and other risky debt a few months after the ADS offering, and a large capital-raising plan soon followed. But Judge Crotty said Barclays' disclosures to investors about its capital strength and dealings with British financial regulators were sufficient, as were its disclosures about how further credit market "dislocations" might hurt its finances. "Given these disclosures, a reasonable investor would infer how continued credit market dislocation might reasonably be expected to have a material impact on future revenues," leaving Barclays "vulnerable to additional write-downs," Judge Crotty wrote. The judge dismissed other parts of the lawsuit in 2011. A federal appeals court revived the portion about the $2.5 billion ADS offering two years later. The case is In re: Barclays Bank Plc Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 09-01989. [GN] BELLAMY AUSTRALIA: Ct. Bases CA Determination on Litigation Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Freund, writing for Litigation Finance Journal, reports that Bellamy Australia Ltd, a major Australian food and beverage company, is facing dual shareholder class action suits following the plunge of its stock price in the wake of low sales growth in China. One class action is Slater and Gordon, and is funded by IMF Bentham, while the other is being brought by Maurice Blackburn and is being funded by ICP Capital. Given that both cases are extremely similar, with the major disparity being the specifics of the litigation funding agreements in each, Bellamy moved to have both proceedings permanently stayed. The Australian courts now had an interesting decision to make. As Lexology reports, Justice Beach was faced with 5 potential decisions: -- consolidation of the two proceedings into one proceeding; -- a permanent stay of one of the proceedings; -- a "declassing" order under section 33N(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976; -- the closure of one proceeding, leaving the other proceeding open; or -- a joint trial with each proceeding remaining as open class proceedings (which Justice Beach described as the "do nothing" option). Justice Beach ultimately determined that a closure of one proceeding was the most appropriate option, in order to eliminate the duplication of group membership in each proceeding. Justice Beach then evaluated each claim's third party funding agreement, and concluded that the Bentham/Slater and Gordon case should remain open, while the ICP/Maurice Blackburn case is closed. The Justice based his determination on how the following factors would impact unsigned group members: -- the experience of the practitioners seeking to bring the representative actions; -- the costs the practitioners anticipated charging; -- the terms, conditions and percentage of the funding agreements; -- the resources made available by each legal representatives and their accessibility to clients; -- the fact that one proceeding was commenced first in time generally carries little weight unless one proceeding has been on foot for significantly longer than the other and is more advanced; -- the number of signed up group members; and -- the position adopted by each funder on the question of security for costs and their resources to meet any adverse costs order. Based on those metrics, Justice Beach determined that the ICP- funded case should be closed, as there was concern about the financial situation of ICP and whether they could post the necessary security for costs. Interestingly, modelling undertaken by the parties also suggested that Bentham's funding model "may generate a more beneficial result for group members." [GN] BHP BILLITON: Sued Over Failure to Pay Oilfield Workers Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Whitaker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BHP Billiton Petroleum (Americas) Inc., Case No. 4:17- cv-02698 (S.D. Tex., September 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay certain oilfield workers overtime as required by Fair Labor Standards Act. BHP Billiton Petroleum (Americas) Inc. is a global independent energy company engaged in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. Matthew S. Parmet, 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 BLICK ART: Oct. 5 Hearing in "Andrews" -------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in the putative class action styled VICTOR ANDREWS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLICK ART MATERIALS, LLC, Defendant, No. 17-CV-767 (E.D.N.Y.), will convene a hearing in Courtroom 10B South on October 5, 2017, at 10:30 a.m. The named plaintiff and a representative with knowledge for defendant shall be present with counsel. The court is particularly interested in a number of aspects of the proposed settlement: How will the defendants' websites technically operate once they comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA? The court would find useful a demonstration of the technology proposed to be implemented assuming there is no action by the Department of Justice or substantial changes in technology while the proposed changes are being implemented. The court will not be in a position to determine the appropriateness of the WCAG 2.0 Level AA Guidelines until it understands them. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybeuhtmk from Leagle.com. Victor Andrews, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Seelig, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, 30 East 39 th. Street, Second Floor. New York, NY 10016. Victor Andrews, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, 30 East 39 th. Street, Second Floor. New York, NY 10016. Blick Art Materials, LLC, Defendant, represented by David Seth Korzenik, Miller Korzenik Sommers LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1120New York, NY 10022-5702, Steve Baron, Mandell Menkes LLC, Steven Mandell -- smandell@mandellmenkes.com -- Mandell Menkes LLC, pro hac vice & Terence Patrick Keegan, Miller Korzenik Sommers Rayman LLP, 488 Madison AvenueSuite 1120New York, NY 10022-5702 BRASKEM SA: Agrees to Settle U.S. Class Action for $10MM -------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports Brazilian petrochemical company Braskem SA said on September 14 it has signed an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit with a $10 million payment. Under the accord, which requires court approval, the money will be paid to investors who acquired American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) in Braskem between July 2010 and March 2015. [GN] BRISTOL WEST: Sued in Col. Over Automobile Insurance Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Vogel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bristol West Insurance Company and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 1:17-cv-02149-STV (D. Col., September 7, 2017), arises out of Bristol's practice of unlawfully failing to pay its insured, specifically holders of Bristol automobile insurance policies certain statutory mandated fees in the event an automobile accident or other event results in a total loss determination by Bristol for the insured's vehicle. Bristol West Insurance Company offers a wide range of coverage options to meet the needs of customers for private passenger auto insurance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett N. Huff, Esq. HUFF & LESLIE, LLP 2480 Gray Street Edgewater, CO 80214 Telephone: (303) 232-3622 Facsimile: (303) 274-0638 E-mail: bhuff@huffandleslie.com BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled TAMERRA WASHINGTON, the Plaintiff, v. BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL, P.C., LLO.; KIRK E. BRUMBAUGH; and MARK QUANDAHL, the Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-00444-JMG-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge John M. Gerrard entered an order 1. denying Washington's motion for class certification; 2. denying B&Q's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as moot; 3. granting in part B&Q's motion for summary judgment part; 4. granting in part and denying in part Washington's motion for partial summary judgment; 5. denying B&Q's motion for contempt; 6. directing Washington to show cause, on or before October 7, 2017, why summary judgment should not be entered as to her NCPA claims; 7. directing Clerk of the Court to enter a show cause deadline of October 7, 2017; and 8. referring matter to the Magistrate Judge for case progression as to Washington's remaining, unresolved claim against Quandahl. The Court said, "B&Q is entitled to summary judgment on each of Washington's FDCPA claims with the exception of Count I, which alleges violations based on the "sworn" and "filed" language described above. With respect to that claim, Washington is entitled to summary judgment, and statutory damages in the amount of $1,000. But it is unclear, at least at this point, if defendant Quandahl shares in that liability. In other words, because genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Quandahl is or was a "debt collector," the Court is unable to determine whether, if at all, Quandahl is liable. Accordingly, at this juncture, the claims remaining for disposition are Washington's NCPA claims and her claim against Quandahl based on the "sworn" and "filed" language of B&Q's discovery request." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dChCVrqr CALIBER HOME: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- Frances Snow, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Persons Similarly Situated v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. ("Caliber"), and US Bank N.A., Case No. 17-0006145 (D.C. Super. Ct., September 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, specifically by contradicting and overshadowing the Plaintiff's rights to dispute the debt and by communicating directly with the Plaintiff when the defendants knew, or should have known, that the Plaintiff was represented by an attorney. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. is an Irving, Texas-based home mortgage originator and servicer established in 2013 by the merger of Caliber Funding and Vericrest Financial. US Bank N.A. is the 5th largest commercial bank in the United States and provides banking, investment, mortgage, trust, and payment services products to individuals, businesses, governmental entities, and other financial institutions. [BN] Frances Snow is a pro se plaintiff. CALIFORNIA TANNING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Brown" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Meghan Brown, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. California Tanning Salons, Inc., Cop A Tan, Inc., and Does 1-50, Case No. BC675212 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants operate a tanning business in the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Davis, Esq. Amir Na Yebdadash, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 136 Main St., Suite A El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 290-3095 Facsimile: (866) 264-7880 CALYPSO ST. BARTH: Court Approves $145K Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff in the case captioned ALECIA HOSUE, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. CALYPSO ST. BARTH, INC., Defendant, Docket No. 160400/2015, Seq. No. 004. (N.Y. Sup.), filed the present Class Action Complaint in New York County Supreme Court. The Complaint alleged that Defendant violated the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and its supporting New York State Department Of Labor Regulations (NYCRR) during the Class Period because Defendant required its Sales Employees to work off- the-clock after the end of their scheduled shift and during meal breaks without compensation and failed to include commissions in the regular rate of pay when calculating the overtime rate of pay for Sales Employees, thereby depriving these Sales Employees of straight and overtime wages. A Joint Settlement Agreement and Release was fully executed by all parties to effectuate the parties' agreement to resolve this matter for $145,000.00. The Court certifies the following class under Article 9 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) for settlement purposes (Settlement Class): All non-exempt hourly paid employees who worked as Sales Employees for Defendant in the State of New York, who are or were employed at any time from through the date of Preliminary Approval and who, during the class period, allegedly did not have their commissions included in their regular rate of pay when calculating their overtime rate of pay, were allegedly not paid all of their straight time pay and overtime pay for work performed during meal breaks and for work performed post-shift off the clock, and allegedly were not provided with accurate wage statements. The Court grants the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Service Awards to Plaintiff and two other Participating Class Members Dario Rodriguez and Paola Francisquini, and Class Counsel's Attorney's Fees and Costs, and finally approves the settlement, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, of $145,000.00. The Court finds reasonable the service award of $5,000.00 for the class representative, Alecia Hosue, given the significant contributions she made to advance the prosecution and resolution of the lawsuit. This award will be paid from the settlement fund. The Court also finds reasonable the service awards of $2,500.00 for participating class members Dario Rodriguez and Paola Francisquini given the contributions they made to advance the prosecution and resolution of the lawsuit. These awards will be paid from the settlement fund. The Court grants Class Counsel's request for attorney's fees and awards Class Counsel $48,328.50 which is 33.33% of the settlement fund. The Court confirms Rust as the Claims Administrator. The Court approves Class Counsel's request for the Claims Administrator to be paid out of the settlement fund. The estimated administration costs are $15,000. Claims Administrator fees in this amount are routinely found reasonable. Therefore, the Court will approve all reasonable Claims Administrator fees in an amount not to exceed $15,000.00. A full-text copy of the Court's September 11, 2017 Decision and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycbdqhyvfrom Leagle.com. CARDCONNECT CORP: Sued in Penn. Over Merchant Services Payments --------------------------------------------------------------- Tech Lounge SP, LLC and The Law Office of Kevin Adams, PLLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Cardconnect Corp., Case No. 2:17-cv-04014-WD (E.D. Penn., September 7, 2017), seeks monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory relief from the Defendant arising from its improper business practices in connection with the provision of merchant services relating to payments via credit and debit cards. Cardconnect Corp. provides payment processing solutions to small and medium business merchants and enterprise customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Golomb, Esq. Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 Facsimile: (215) 985-4169 E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com - and - E. Adam Webb, Esq. Matthew C. Klase, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-0773 Facsimile: (770) 217-9950 E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com Matt@WebbLLC.com CAREMERIDIAN LLC: Hit With CA Over Meal and Rest Break Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Sacramento employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik filed a proposed class action Complaint against Caremeridian, LLC for allegedly failing to provide their California employees with the legally required thirty minute uninterrupted meal periods and allegedly failing to pay all overtime due to their California employees. The Caremeridian, LLC lawsuit, Case No. 17CECG03048 is currently pending in the Fresno County Superior Court for the State of California. The lawsuit filed against Caremeridian, LLC alleges that the company as a matter of corporate policy, practice and procedure, intentionally, knowingly and systematically failed to reimburse and indemnify its employees for required business expenses incurred by the employees in direct consequence of discharging their duties on behalf of Caremeridian. Under California Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required to indemnify employees for all expenses incurred in the course and scope of their employment. The Complaint also alleges that the employees working in California for Defendant were not always able to take their thirty minute uninterrupted meal breaks before their fifth hour of work. California law requires employers to provide their non-exempt employees paid on an hourly basis with thirty minute meal periods before the employee works five hours. The penalty for failing to provide adequate meal breaks is one hour of pay under the California Labor Code. Additionally, the class action lawsuit alleges when PLAINTIFF worked overtime and/or missed meal periods DEFENDANT also provided PLAINTIFF with a paystub that failed to accurately display PLAINTIFF's correct rates of overtime pay and missed meal penalties for certain pay periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code 226(a). For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against Caremeridian, LLC please call (866) 771-7099 to speak to Nicholas J. De Blouw at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is a California employment law firm with offices located in San Diego, Sacramento, San Francisco, Riverside and Los Angeles Counties that dedicates its practice to helping employees, fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. [GN] CARLTON MANOR: Class Cert. Bid in "McKinney" Denied as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DEBI MCKINNEY, the Plaintiff, v. CARLTON MANOR NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-00279-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order administratively denying as moot Plaintiff's Motion for class certification, appointment of class representative and appointment of class counsel. The Court said, "Plaintiff is free to renew the Motion in the event she decides to pursue it. Nothing in the Order may be construed as a ruling on the merits of Plaintiff's Motion. The Court will reconvene the case in approximately 14 days to discuss the status of the litigation." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mbglPc9k CHARIOTS OF HIRE: Court Conditionally Certifies Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled GREGORY PHIPPS and BRIAN MENSING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CHARIOTS OF HIRE, INC., and JOHN MARK PARSONS, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-CV-97-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Thomas A. Varlan entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying class action according to the terms of the parties' agreement; 2. directing Defendants to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with the e-mail addresses of potential opt-in class members, if on file; and 3. directing to send agreed-upon notice and consent forms to potential opt-in class members by first-class mail and email. The Court said, "After carefully reviewing the matter, the Court is in agreement with Magistrate Judge Guyton's recommendations, which the Court adopts and incorporates into its ruling. Accordingly, the Court accepts in whole the R&R. Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Court- Authorized Notice is hereby granted in part and denied in part, in accordance with the recommendations of the R&R." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H4NuTRoN CHICAGO, IL: Faces "Aldape" Class Suit Over Eviction Plan --------------------------------------------------------- Carol Aldape and Thomas Gordon, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons v. The City of Chicago, Case No. 2017CH12186 (Ill. Ch. Ct., September 7, 2017), arises out of the City's decision to permanently displace the Plaintiffs from the viaducts where they live under the Lake Shore Drive bridges at Wilson and Lawrence Avenues as a result of the City's proposed plan to evict the homeless residents and re-design the viaducts. The City of Chicago is a municipal corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois and located in Cook County, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert N. Hermes, Esq. BUTLER RUBIN SALTARELLI & BOYD LLP 321 North Clark Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 444-9660 Facsimile: (312) 873-4382 E-mail: bhermes@butlerrubin.com - and - Diane O'Connell, Esq. Patricia Nix-Hodes, Esq. LAW PROJECT OF THE CHICAGO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS 70 East Lake Street, Suite 720 Chicago, IL 60601 - and - Alan Mills, Esq. UPTOWN PEOPLE'S LAW CENTER 4413 North Sheridan Chicago, IL 60640 CIGNA HEALTH: Faces "Patchell" Class Suit Over ERISA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Patchell, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company and Life Insurance Company of America, and Disability Management Solutions, Case No. 3:17-cv-00161-KRG (W.D. Penn., September 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, specifically by failure to pay short and long term disability on time, failure to pay interest on past-due benefits, failure to reimburse the Plaintiff for expert witnesses when adverse internal decisions were then reversed, and failure to assert overpayments at an early opportunity despite the Plaintiff's correct and timely forms completion of Social Security Disclosure and Defendant's verification. The Defendants operate a global health insurance service company, offering health, dental, supplemental insurance and Medicare plans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terrence A. Valko, Esq. 616 1st Ave. Altoona, PA 16602 Telephone: (814) 944-8275 E-mail: terryvalko@yahoo.com CLAUDINE DE NIRO: "Dilazary" Suit Moved to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Thais Dilazary and Linda Williams on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Claudine De Niro, the Defendant, Case No. 153583/2017, was removed on Sep. 5, 2017 from the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-06748-AT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Esq. Michael Alexander Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW PC Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873 9550 Facsimile: (516) 747 5024 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com jbrown@lmblaw.com mtompkins@lmblaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Tara Toevs Carolan, Esq. Laurent Scott Drogin, Esq. TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP 1350 Broadway New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 216 8000 Facsimile: (212) 216 8001 E-mail: ttoevs@tarterkrinsky.com LDROGIN@tarterkrinsky.com COM DEV: Court Granted Class Certification Motion in "Tom" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Curtis Tom, the Plaintiff, v. Com Dev USA, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01363-PSG-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order granting motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class action Settlement on behalf of: "participants in Part Two or Three of the Plan who retired and commenced receipt of benefits and who are listed on the Plan of Allocation to the Settlement Agreement and fall within either Group A or Group B defined below and every derivative claimant of such person who is an Eligible Beneficiary or Eligible Estate Representative". Group A includes individuals: (1): who were paid a Period Certain Benefit Option that was calculated using segment interest rates, rather than the 30-year treasury rate, as the applicable interest rate, and/or (2) who were paid a Period Certain Benefit Option that failed to include both the actuarial value of a COLA reasonably estimated to be payable under a life annuity during the lifetime of the participant and the value of the participant's subsidized early retirement benefit (where the participant was otherwise eligible for a COLA and a subsidized early retirement under the Com Dev Plan) Group B includes individuals: who elected a form of benefit that was not a Period Certain Benefit Option but were provided with information describing the various optional forms of benefits and the relative values of each optional benefit form that included a Period Certain Benefit Option that was calculated using segment interest rates, rather than the 30- year treasury rate, as the applicable interest rate, and/or failed to include both the actuarial value of COLA reasonably estimated to be payable under a life annuity during the lifetime of the participant and the value of the participant's subsidized early retirement benefit (where the participant was otherwise eligible for a COLA and a subsidized early retirement under the Com Dev Plan). Group B also includes every derivative claimant of such person who is an Eligible Beneficiary or Eligible Estate Representative. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fVrgdqlD COREPOWER YOGA: $1.4MM "Barnard" Class Settlement Has Prelim OK --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned SHAUNA BARNARD, v. COREPOWER YOGA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03861-HSG (N.D. Cal.). Pending before the Court is the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement filed by Plaintiff Shauna Barnard, individually and on behalf of the settlement class. Plaintiff filed the action against Defendant in Alameda Superior Court, alleging that its pay and meal and rest break practices violated the California Labor Code. Class Definition: All individuals who were employed at any time by Defendant in California as non-exempt/hourly yoga instructors, interns, or teachers between April 4, 2015, and the date of this order. The parties have represented that there is a total of approximately 1,536 individuals who fall within the class period. Monetary Relief: Defendant will establish a gross settlement fund consisting of $1,400,000. The parties propose that civil penalties of $30,000 related to the PAGA claim will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) (providing that penalties under PAGA are split 75% to LWDA and 25% to aggrieved employees). The gross settlement fund accordingly includes Court-approved attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration fees, the LWDA payment, and any additional payment to Plaintiff as class representative. The cash payments to the class will be based on the number of yoga classes each class member taught at a California studio during the relevant class period. The parties have estimated that after the deductions identified above, individual class members will receive approximately $590. Incentive Award: Plaintiff will file a motion after final settlement approval for a $10,000 incentive award, subject to court approval. Plaintiff's counsel states that she "incurred a significant amount of risk acting as class representative as she was employed by Defendant until just prior to settlement. Defendant does not oppose this request. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: Plaintiff will file an application after final settlement approval for attorneys' fees not to exceed 30% of the gross settlement amount and for costs not to exceed $20,0000. Defendant does not oppose this request. Rule 23(a) Certification Numerosity Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the putative class be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The Court finds that numerosity is satisfied here because joinder of the estimated 1,536 class members would be impracticable. Commonality Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there are questions of law or fact common to the class. A contention is sufficiently common where it is capable of class-wide resolution which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke. Common questions of law and fact in this action include whether Defendant's policies violated California's wage and hour laws by failing to compensate employees for time spent performing administrative tasks, such as working at the reception desk, completing required trainings, traveling to different studios, and creating playlists for classes. Accordingly, the Court finds that the commonality requirement is met in this case. Typicality Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. Plaintiff's claims are both factually and legally similar to those of the putative class because Defendant allegedly failed to pay both Plaintiff and all class members the same forms of compensation and reimbursement. That is sufficient to satisfy the typicality requirement. Adequacy of Representation Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the representative parties will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. The Court must address two legal questions: (1) whether the named Plaintiff and her counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) whether the named Plaintiff and her counsel will prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class. The Court is unaware of any actual conflicts of interest in this matter and no evidence in the record suggests that either Plaintiff or proposed class counsel have a conflict with other class members. Court finds that proposed class counsel and Plaintiff have prosecuted this action vigorously on behalf of the class to date, and will continue to do so. The adequacy of representation requirement, therefore, is satisfied. Predominance The predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, U.S. 136 S.Ct. 1036, 1045. The Court finds for purposes of settlement that the common questions raised by Plaintiff's claims predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the proposed class. Because under Plaintiff's allegations Defendant's wage and hour policies were uniform and violated California law, the Court finds the predominance requirement is satisfied for purposes of provisional class certification. Superiority The superiority requirement tests whether a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Because common legal and factual questions predominate over individual ones, and taking into account the large size of the proposed class, the Court finds that the judicial economy achieved through common adjudication renders a class action a superior method for adjudicating the claims of the proposed class. Class Representative and Class Counsel In light of the fact that Plaintiff's counsel has extensive experience litigating class actions in federal court, and given their diligence in prosecuting this action to date, the Court appoints Blanchard, Krasner & French and the Emge Firm, LLP as class counsel. Legal Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides that the claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled only with the court's approval. The purpose of Rule 23(e) is to protect the unnamed members of the class from unjust or unfair settlements affecting their rights. In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, before a district court approves a class action settlement, it must conclude that the settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable. In re Heritage Bond Litig., 546 F.3d 667, 674-75 (9th Cir. 2008). Settlement Process The first factor the Court considers is the means by which the parties settled the action. An initial presumption of fairness is usually involved if the settlement is recommended by class counsel after arm's-length bargaining. Here, class counsel believes based on significant formal discovery, including the analysis of thousands of pages of documents, that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Court consequently finds that this factor weighs in favor of preliminary approval. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yasnn8b8from Leagle.com. Shauna Barnard, Plaintiff, represented by David C. Hawkes -- dhawkes@bkflaw.com -- Blanchard Krasner French. Shauna Barnard, Plaintiff, represented by Derek John Emge -- derek@emgelawfirm.com -- The Emge Firm LLP. CorePower Yoga LLC, Defendant, represented by Philippe Alexandre Lebel -- philippe.lebel@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Valerie Dutton Kahn -- valerie_kahn@ca9.uscourts.gov -- Drinker Biddle Reath LLP, Ramon Andres Miyar -- ramon.miyar@dbr.xom -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & Cheryl D. Orr -- cheryl.orr@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. COSMETIC INSTITUTE: Faces CA Over Breast Procedures Complications ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Armitage, writing for ABC, reports that a group of women has brought a class action against Australia's largest cosmetic surgery provider, The Cosmetic Institute (TCI), alleging negligence during breast augmentation procedures left them with life-threatening complications. A statement of claim also alleges the company's staff lacked the capacity to access urgent medical assistance in emergencies, and the clinics did not have adequate infection controls. "These women have suffered a range of complications including cardiac arrests from toxic doses of anaesthesia, lung punctures, infections, and physical disfigurement," said lawyer Sally Gleeson from Turner Freeman. One of the five lead applicants is a Western Australian woman who in 2015 went into cardiac arrest during a breast augmentation at TCI's Parramatta clinic. The other participants include a New South Wales woman who suffered seizures during her procedure, and a Queensland student who required emergency surgery after developing a severe post- operative infection. "The Cosmetic Institute has left a trail of victims who were promised top-quality cosmetic surgery in a highly advanced medical setting, but instead have suffered serious injuries and ongoing pain and suffering as a result of their treatment," Ms Gleeson said. The class action also alleges TCI used identical surgical techniques on almost all patients, regardless of their size or breast shape, which has resulted in poorly positioned implants and scarring. It has clinics in Sydney, the Gold Coast and Melbourne, offering breast augmentations for AUD5,990. Last year, the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission investigation found The Cosmetic Institute appeared to be giving high doses of anaesthetic to patients without their consent. "Adrenaline was used routinely (in combination with local anaesthetic agents) at well above the accepted upper limit of safe dosage," the report found. It found the clinics "placed the health and safety of members of the public at risk". Ms. Gleeson told the ABC she's been approached by several hundred women who were unhappy with their surgeries at TCI since 2014. "If we take TCI's claims on their website to be accurate, they have performed breast augmentations on thousands of women, so I wouldn't be surprised if more women continue to come forward," she said. "Every patient deserves competent treatment and follow up care. This class action is about delivering justice for this large group of women who continue to suffer from the impact of TCI's failures to appropriately and safely carry out these procedures." Turner Freeman said TCI patients who have had complications could still join the class action suit. The Cosmetic Institute said it would not be discussing the case publicly. "Should this matter proceed, we will be defending any allegations made against TCI," the company said in a statement to the ABC. [GN] CPA GLOBAL: Wants to Bring Bentham-Funded CA in Channel Islands --------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that there is no mechanism for group litigation in the Royal Court of Jersey, which oversees cases involving businesses incorporated in the popular Channel Island offshore jurisdiction. But the New York-based law firm Kobre & Kim has plans to team up with the litigation funder Bentham IMF to replicate the advantages of a class action in a jurisdiction where mass litigation doesn't exist. Kobre & Kim claims that it has uncovered overbilling practices by the world's biggest intellectual property management company, CPA Global, in CPA's patent renewal services for CPA clients outside of the U.S. Earlier this year in the U.S., a small group of CPA clients settled a patent renewal overcharging class action for $5.6 million. But most CPA customers, according to Kobre & Kim, can't litigate in the U.S. because they agreed to forum selection provisions directing disputes to Jersey, which has a British-style loser-pays rule and no means by which plaintiffs can band together to sue as a group. So Kobre & Kim went to Bentham. "We had to create a mechanism," said Kobre partner Michael Ng. "This required some creativity." Before I go on, I want to highlight two big caveats. First: CPA denies the overbilling claims. "CPA Global categorically and emphatically denies any wrongdoing in our business," a company spokesman said in a written statement. "The fees for our service are defined in our agreements with our customers, and we adhere to those agreements fully. CPA Global prides itself on its industry-leading ethical standards." It's true that the company settled the U.S. overbilling class action earlier this year - but the clients in that case were small businesses that signed up with CPA through patent agents and did not reach individual fee agreements with the patent management company. CPA maintained in a filing in the U.S. class action that most of its clients negotiate their patent renewal fees directly with the company and are fully informed about the company's fee structure. "CPA Global believes that all of its fees are justified and adequately disclosed," the company's filing said. Second: Kobre & Kim hasn't yet filed any suits in Jersey for CPA clients. Its contemplated mass action is at the moment entirely speculative. And though Kobre partner Ng said the firm and its Jersey co-counsel, Baker & Partners, have reviewed "a large volume" of CPA renewal bills, Ng would not specify who his clients are or even how many of them are contemplating litigation. Bentham chief investment officer Allison Chock confirmed that Kobre & Kim is investigating and that her shop "has conditionally committed to fund the group proceedings" in the Isle of Jersey. But to repeat, the group proceeding does not actually exist right now. "We consider any speculation about future litigation that might or might not take place to be a deliberate attempt to tarnish our good business reputation and, as we always have, will continue to vigorously defend ourselves against any such vexatious speculation," a statement from CPA said. That said, I'm intrigued by the idea of a U.S. law firm (albeit with offices around the world) teaming up with a litigation funder in an attempt to assemble a mass case in a jurisdiction where there's no such thing. As you know, U.S. and European law firms have been working for several years with litigation financiers in the U.K., Germany and the Netherlands - but those jurisdictions have procedural frameworks for plaintiffs to band together. Jersey doesn't, although its legal systems has previously held that litigation funding agreements are valid for plaintiffs who cannot otherwise afford to bring their cases. Ng said Kobre & Kim and Bentham have a standard, no-recourse funding arrangement. Under their deal, if the CPA litigation is filed, clients won't be on the hook for their own fees or CPA fees, even if the case flops. Bentham's Chock declined to say how much Bentham has committed to the potential litigation. "Clients don't want to be out there on their own," Kobre's Ng said. "This is a way of making a solution available." [GN] CUSTOMER SERVICE: Court Certifies Employees Class in "Elliot" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled TERRY ELLIOT and LASHON MCDANIEL, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFFS v. CUSTOMER SERVICE QUALITY TRANSPORTATION, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00069-JM (E.D. Ark.), the Court certifies a settlement group of: "all current and former employees of CSQT who worked as mechanics from February 2, 2015 to August 1, 2017." The Court appoints Steve Rauls of the Sanford Law Firm, PLLC as group counsel. The Court finds that the proposed settlement is a fair, reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute, and that the proposed notice adequately informs the potential class members of their rights. The Court instructs Steve Rauls to notify the Court when the settlement checks have been received and to request that the lawsuit and all settling plaintiffs be dismissed with prejudice. The Court will retain jurisdiction only to resolve issues with the settlement. The pending motion to certify class is denied as moot. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jfkW7VWJ CVS PHARMACY: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Haynes Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS HAYNES, Individually, the Plaintiff, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Rhode Island corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv- 61778-BB (S.D. Fla., Sep. 7, 2017), asks the Court to issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that the Defendant's website violates Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff, individually, on his behalf and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, sues the Defendant for injunctive relief, and attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act The Plaintiff is a Florida resident, lives in Broward County, is sui juris, and qualifies as an individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA. Plaintiff is blind and therefore unable to fully engage in and enjoy the major life activity of seeing. The Plaintiff also utilizes the internet. Plaintiff is unable to read computer materials and/or access and comprehend internet website information without software specially designed for the visually impaired. Specifically, Plaintiff utilizes the JAWS Screen Reader software, which is one of the most popular reader Screen Reader Software ("SRS") utilized worldwide. CVS Pharmacy is a subsidiary of the American retail and health care company CVS Health, headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. It was also known as, and originally named the Consumer Value Store and was founded in Lowell, Massachusetts in 1963.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathy L. Houston, Esq. Thomas B. Bacon, Esq. THOMAS B. BACON, P.A. 644 North Mc Donald St. Mt. Dora, FL 32757 Telephone: (954) 478 7811 E-mail: tbb@thomasbaconlaw.com courtdocs@houstonlawfl.com DOMINION DIAMOND: Violates New York and Canadian Law ---------------------------------------------------- NADAV POMS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOMINION DIAMOND CORPORATION, JAMES GOWANS, THOMAS ANDRUSKEVICH, GRAHAM CLOW, TRUDY CURRAN, TIM DABSON, DAVID SMITH, CHUCK STRAHL, and JOSEF VEJVODA, the Defendants, Case No. 655733/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sep. 7, 2017), seeks solely injunctive and declaratory relief, i.e. an order enjoining a proposed transaction unless and until Defendants disclose all material information regarding the proposed transaction to the Company's shareholders. On July 15, 2017, Dominion's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into a definitive arrangement agreement with Northwest Acquisitions ULC, an affiliate of The Washington Companies, pursuant to which each share of Dominion's common stock will be converted into the right to receive $14.25 per share in cash. To convince Dominion's stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of an Information Circular with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 23, 2017, which was also mailed to the Company's shareholders. According to the Complaint, in violation of New York and Canadian law, the Circular contains incomplete and materially misleading information regarding: (i) the process leading to the Proposed Transaction; (ii) the financial analyses conducted by the Company's financial advisors, TD Securities Inc. and Morgan Stanley Canada Limited, in connection with the Proposed Transaction; and (iii) the projections relied upon by TD Securities and Morgan Stanley in performing their valuation analyses. For these reasons, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until the material information is disclosed to Dominion stockholders before the vote on the Proposed Transaction. Dominion Diamond Corporation -- formerly known as Harry Winston and, before that, Aber -- is a Toronto, Ontario, Canada, specialist diamond mining and retail company. The company holds a 40% stake in the Diavik Diamond Mine Project.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Palestina, Esq. Christopher Tillotson, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 206 Covington Street Madisonville, LA 70447 Telephone: (504) 455-1400 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971 1341 Facsimile: (212) 202 7880 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com DST SYSTEMS: BOD Sued Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Ostrander, as representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan v. DST Systems, Inc., The Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc., 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation Committee of the Board Of Directors Of DST Systems, Inc., Ruane, Cunniff, & Goldfarb, Inc., and John Does 1-20, Case No. 4:17-cv-00747-GAF (W.D. Miss., September 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties by, (1) failing to use "care, skill, prudence, and diligence"; (2) failing to diversify the investments of the DST Retirement Plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses, when under the circumstances, and during the Class Period, it was clearly prudent to do so; and (3) failing to confirm, during the Class Period, that the Plan's underlying investments were consistent with the stated description of the Plan. DST Systems, Inc. provides global information processing services and support to clients in the asset management, insurance, retirement, brokerage and healthcare industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Klamann, Esq. Andrew Schermerhorn, Esq. Paul D. Anderson, Esq. THE KLAMANN LAW FIRM 4435 Main Street, Suite 150 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 421-2626 Facsimile: (816) 421-8686 E-mail: jklamann@klamannlaw.com ajs@klamannlaw.com panderson@klamannlaw.com - and - Ted Kapke, Esq. Mike Fleming, Esq. KAPKE & WILLERTH 3304 N.E. Ralph Powell Road Lee's Summit, MO 64064 Telephone: (816) 461-3800 Facsimile: (816) 254-8014 E-mail: ted@kapkewillerth.com mike@kapkewillerth.com - and - William Carr, Esq. Bryan T. White, Esq. WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY & CARR 19049 East Valley View Parkway Independence, MI 64055 Telephone: (816) 373-9080 Facsimile: (816) 373-9319 E-mail: bwhite@wagblaw.com - and - Kenneth B. McClain, Esq. HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & McCLAIN 221 West Lexington, Suite 400 P.O. Box 900 Independence, MI 64051 Telephone: (816) 836-5050 Facsimile: (816) 836-8966 E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com EOG RESOURCES: Faces "Qualls" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Marcus Qualls, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EOG Resources, Inc., Bedrock Petroleum Consultants, LLC and Jonathan Falcon, Case No. 1:17-cv-00916 (D.N.M., September 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. EOG Resources, Inc. is an international energy company engaged in exploration and production of oil and gas. EOG has operations across the United States, including in Texas, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Suite 15 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com EQUIFAX INC: Baltimore Law Firm Leads Class-Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Robinson, writing for WBALTV, reports that Maryland is one of the first states to file a class-action lawsuit against Equifax for its massive data breach exposing personal information for 143 million people. Baltimore law firm Murphy, Falcon and Murphy filed the suit on September 12 in federal court in Greenbelt. Among other things, the lawsuit alleges Equifax discovered the breach as early as July 29 chose not to notify consumers and instead tried to find out the extent of the problem by contracting a third-party cybersecurity firm. It also alleges that Equifax concealed the breaches from the public so that three of its executives could sell shares of stock worth a combined $1.8 million. "I think this lawsuit already contains everybody in America that has a credit profile. We think that, ultimately, the suits will be consolidated so the work can begin," Murphy said. People are included in the class-action lawsuit if they are one of the 143 million people impacted. Dozens of firms across the country have filed class-action suits. The federal court will create a multi-district litigation panel that will decide the venue for the case, the state and courthouse in which it will heard. The number of lawyers will be decreased, and a select group of them will be in charge of the case, dividing responsibilities and coming up with a consolidated complaint so they can pursue the case. Equifax has a website where people can determine whether they are impacted. [GN] EQUIFAX INC: Lieff Cabraser File Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Equifax Inc. ("Equifax" or the "Company") (NYSE: EFX) between February 25, 2016 and September 7, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired Equifax common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than November 13, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the actions. Equifax investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the Equifax Securities Class Litigation Equifax is an Atlanta, Georgia-based credit reporting and identity verification company. The action alleges that defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose: 1) the Company failed to maintain adequate measures to protect its data systems; (2) the Company failed to maintain adequate monitoring systems to detect security breaches; (3) the Company failed to maintain proper security systems, controls and monitoring systems in place; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 7, 2017, Equifax belatedly revealed that more than a month earlier, on July 29, 2017, it had discovered a massive security breach by hackers who illegally gained access to the names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and, in some cases, driver's license numbers, of as many as 143 million U.S. consumers who are now at risk of identity theft. On this news, the price of Equifax common stock fell $19.49 per share, or 13.66%, to close at $123.23 on September 8, 2017. Prior to Equifax's disclosure of the security breach, but after it was discovered on July 29th, three Equifax senior executives -- Equifax's Chief Financial Officer, President of U.S. Information, and President of Workforce Solutions -- sold Equifax stock and/or exercised options to dispose of Equifax stock on August 1st and 2nd for total proceeds of nearly $2 million. Equifax is currently the target of several government investigations concerning the security breach. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world." In late 2016, Benchmark Litigation named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America." ERICSSON INC: Nguyen Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------- JOHN NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated the Plaintiff, v. ERICSSON, INC., 4G PROJECT PEOPLE, INC., NETWORK.ERS, INC., and MICHAEL WILCOX, the Defendants, Case No. 17CV315587 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Defendants did not provide, permit, or authorize Plaintiff to take their meal breaks, or pay added wages in lieu of the break as required by law. Defendants also did not provide, permit, or authorize Plaintiff to take their rest breaks, or pay added wages in lieu of the break as required by law. The Plaintiff worked more hours in one shift than the minimum hours required by law to be entitled to those breaks. The Plaintiff has never voluntarily or willfully waived his rest breaks. Any express or implied waivers obtained from Plaintiff were not willfully obtained, were not voluntarily agreed to, were a condition or employment, or were part of an unlawful contract of adhesion. The Defendants' failure to provide the statutorily required breaks makes them liable to Plaintiff for one hour of pay at Plaintiff' regular rate for each meal break missed, and another hour of pay at Plaintiff' regular rate for each day where a rest break was not provided. As a result of Defendants' unlawful acts, Plaintiff has been deprived of wages in amounts to be determined at trial and is entitled to their recovery, as well as interest and penalties and attorneys' fees and costs. Ericsson is a multinational networking and telecommunications equipment and services company headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tomas E. Margain, Esq. Huy Tran, Esq. JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP, LLP 84 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 790 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 317 1100 Facsimile: (408) 351 0105 E-mail: Tomas@JAWLawGroup.com Huy@JAWLawGroup.com - and - Kevin R. Allen, Esq. Daniel Yelton, Esq. VELTON ZEGELMAN P.C. 525 W. Remington Drive, Suite 106 Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Telephone: (408) 505 7892 Facsimile: (408) 228 1930 E-mail: kallen@vzfirm.com dvelton@vzfirm.com EVERKEPT INC: "Burman" Suit Seeks to Certify Drivers Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SCOTT BURMAN and KEVIN MULDER, for themselves individually and for those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EVERKEPT, INC., a.k.a. EVERKEPT DISPOSAL, a Michigan corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00596-JTN (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and approve Plaintiffs' proposed notice of collective action lawsuit for unpaid Overtime and other wages on behalf of: "Residential Pick-up Drivers employed by Everkept from September 2013 - June 2015." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=es9A4xw3 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dale R. Burmeister, Esq. Jason R. Mathers, Esq. Gregory P. LaVoy, Esq. HARVEY KRUSE, P.C. 1050 Wilshire Drive, Suite 320 Troy, MI 48084 Tel: (248) 649-7800 E-mail: dburmeister@harveykruse.com jmathers@harveykruse.com glavoy@harveykruse.com - and - Michael T. Van Tubergen, Esq. VAN TUBERGEN, TREUTLER & HAYES, PLLC 114 North Third Street Grand Haven, MI 49417 Telephone: (616) 844 3000 E-mail: mvantubergen@vttlaw.com - and - Christopher J. Breay, Esq. Ruth A. Skidmore, Esq. MCSHANE & BOWIE, P.L.C. 99 Monroe Ave., N.W., Suite 1100 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 732 5000 E-mail: cjb@msblaw.com ras@msblaw.com FARMERS NEW WORLD: "Olson" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled DEBE OLSON, the Plaintiff, v. FARMERS NEW WORLD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND FARMERS GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01898 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order certifying class and subclass: The class is composed of: "all persons or entities (the "Class" or "Class Members") who purchased, have, or had at the time of the policy's termination, an ownership interest in one or more policies issued by Farmers between November 3, 1984 and December 31, 1996 ("Class Period"). The policies issued were Farmers Universal Life ("FUL") and Farmers Flexible Universal Life policy ("FFUL"). The cause of action and class rests on the fact that Farmers made an undisclosed transfer of the investment risk to all policyholders as admitted by the Defendants own expert, Professor Skipper. Professor Skipper also states people cannot read and understand their policies and that is why there is a need for insurance law and regulations. He blames management for the problems. This class consists of approximately 903,000 policyholders. It excludes Farmers employees, and ERISA plans and or participants and the 3% who paid for their policies in full." The subclass consists of: "individuals who held either or both FUL and FFUL policies between March 1, 1993, through March 31, 1996, when interest paid on FUL policies was purposefully set lower than FFUL policies to make FFUL policies look more attractive by quoting a higher interest rate which increased sales. This subclass also necessarily includes individuals who purchased a new FFUL policy between the dates of March 31,1993 to March 31,1996. Farmers own minutes admit that the practice was unfair. This subclass is all part of the main class and involves approximately 330,000 policyholders." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qqTfuE6p The Plaintiff is represented by: David Sheller, Esq. SHELLER LAW FIRM PLLC Houston, TX 77034 Telephone: (832) 841 1175 Facsimile: (281) 484 2101 E-mail: david@shellerlawfirm.com FCA US: Faces "Budris" Suit in Connecticut Superior Court --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case is captioned as NICHOLAS BUDRIS ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, D/B/A: DODGE, the Defendant, Case No. UWY-CV-17-6036081-S (Conn. Sup. Ct., Sep. 5, 2017). FCA US LLC is the American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., an Italian controlled automobile manufacturer registered in the Netherlands with headquarters in London, U.K., for tax purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: CONSUMER LAW GROUP LLC 35 Cold Spring Road, Suite 512 ROCKY HILL, CT 06067 Telephone: (860) 571 0408 FGF BRANDS: "Sims" Suit Moved to Central District of California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Hortense Sims, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. FGF Brands USA Inc., a Delaware Corporation and FGF Brands, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. RIC1714365, was removed on Sep. 7, 2017 from the Riverside County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-01815-DOC-KK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David O. Carter. FGF Brands operates a bakery that produces tandoori naans, sandwich flats, stone-baked pizza crusts, and muffins.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kas L Gallucci, Esq. Michael Houchin, Esq. Ronald A Marron, Esq. RONALD A MARRON LAW OFFICES APLC 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696 9006 Facsimile: (619) 564 6665 E-mail: kas@consumersadvocates.com mike@consumersadvocates.com ron@consumersadvocates.com The Defendants are represented by: Dale M Cendali, Esq. Mary C Mazzello, Esq. Diana M Torres, Esq. KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446 4846 Facsimile: (212) 446 4900 E-mail: Dale.Cendali@kirkland.com mary.mazzello@kirkland.com diana.torres@kirkland.com FIRST SOUTH: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Proposed Carolina Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First South Bancorp, Inc., Frederick N. Holscher, Marshall T. Singleton, Lindsey A. Crisp, Bruce W. Elder, Steve L. Griffin, L. Steven Lee, and Carolina Financial Corporation, Case No. 4:17-cv-00124-BO (E.D.N.C., September 7, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 12, 2017, pursuant to which First South Bancorp, Inc. will merge with and into Carolina Financial Corporation. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, if the Proposed Transaction is approved by First South's and Carolina Financial's stockholders, stockholders of First South will receive for 0.52 shares of Carolina Financial common stock for each share of First South common stock they own. According to the complaint, First South filed a Definitive Proxy Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that First South stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the Proxy omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) "Opinion of First South's Financial Advisor;" (ii) "Opinion of Carolina Financial's Financial Advisor;" and (iii) "Certain Carolina Financial and First South Unaudited Prospective Financial Information." The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest First South's public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets without fully disclosing all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy defendants' Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such problems are remedied. First South Bancorp, Inc. is a financial holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet Ward Black, Esq. Nancy Meyers, Esq. WARD BLACK LAW 208 West Wendover Avenue Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 510-2014 Facsimile: (336) 510-2181 E-mail: jwblack@wardblacklaw.com FLORIDA: Teachers Union Files Potential Class-Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Saunders, writing for WJCT, reports that the Florida Education Association teachers union has filed a potential class-action lawsuit alleging that the state's controversial "Best and Brightest" bonus program discriminates against older teachers and minorities. The lawsuit, filed on September 13 in federal court in Tallahassee, names as defendants the Florida Department of Education and school boards throughout the state. Lawmakers approved the Best and Brightest program in 2015 to provide bonuses to teachers. But the program has been controversial, in part, because it uses teacher performances on SAT and ACT college-entrance exams --- in some cases, exams that teachers took decades ago --- to help determine eligibility for the bonuses. The lawsuit, which also includes seven individual teachers as plaintiffs, alleges that the Best and Brightest program violates state and federal civil-rights laws because of the use of the SAT and ACT scores. "The SAT/ACT score requirement has an illegal disparate impact on teachers based on their age and on teachers based on their black and Hispanic race," the 58-page lawsuit said. "The SAT/ACT score requirement is not required by business necessity and is not related to job performance." The lawsuit, which seeks certification as a class action, asks for damages and an injunction preventing the state and school boards from engaging in the alleged "illegal actions." A spokeswoman for the Department of Education said on September 14 the agency does not comment on litigation. During the 2015-2016 school year, 5,334 teachers received the bonuses, with each getting $8,248, according to a House analysis in May. In 2015-2016, 7,188 teachers received $6,816 each. Lawmakers earmarked about $44 million for the program in 2015-2016 and $49 million in 2016-2017. The lawsuit alleges, however, that during the 2015-2016 year, less than 1 percent of the bonus recipients were black teachers, while about 4 percent were Hispanic. It also detailed statistics indicating disparate effects of the SAT or ACT requirement on older teachers who otherwise had been rated as "highly effective." Though lawmakers made some revisions this year, eligibility criteria during the program's first two years required teachers to show they had been rated "highly effective" during their annual evaluations and that they had scored at or above the 80th percentile when they took the SAT or ACT. First-year teachers, who had not gone through annual evaluations, could qualify based on their SAT or ACT scores. The lawsuit said the Florida Education Association represents thousands of classroom teachers "who are over 40 years of age, who are black and/or Hispanic, who have been rated highly (effective), who were not first year teachers . . . and who applied for the bonus under the program and were denied and did not receive the bonus because they could not satisfy the SAT/ACT requirement, or who would have applied for but were deterred from applying because it would have been a futile act because they could not satisfy the SAT/ACT requirement." [GN] FLORIDA: Court Approves Settlement in Hernia Treatment Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court, Northern District Florida, Tallahassee Division, issued an order for final approval of parties' settlement in the case captioned TRACY COPELAND et al., Plaintiffs, v. JULIE L. JONES, etc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:15cv452-RH/CAS (N.D. Fla.). The plaintiffs in this class action challenge the treatment of hernias by the Florida Department of Corrections and its prior contracted medical provider, Corizon LLC. The Court finds that the settlement is a fair, adequate, and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute. The settlement did not result from collusion. The agreed class-representative fees are reasonable. The agreed attorney's fees were separately negotiated, are reasonable, are within the range that customarily would be charged by attorneys in this district for services of this kind, and comport with the standards governing fee awards in this circuit in cases of this kind. The settlement classes and subclasses have been properly certified. The consent order has been properly implemented to this point. All procedural requirements have been met. The motion to finally approve the settlement is granted. All objections are overruled. These motions are denied as unfounded, unnecessary, or moot: Don Ferguson's motion to object. Jon Duke DePriest's motion for belated objection and other relief. Phillip Collins's motion to transport or in the alternative for telephonic hearing. Raymond Johnson's motion for joinder of parties and second motion for joinder of parties. Scott Meyers's affidavit which is deemed a motion to be added to the damages class. Clyde Stokes's motion to extend time and motion to be added to the damages class. Raymond Johnson's motion to compel a response. Jon Duke DePriest's second motion for belated objection and other relief. All claims of the named plaintiff and class members are voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya8g2euvfrom Leagle.com. TRACY COPELAND, Plaintiff, represented by DOUGLAS WOLFE, KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP, 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th FloorMiami, FL 33134 TRACY COPELAND, Plaintiff, represented by RANDALL CHALLEN BERG, FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE INC, DANTE PASQUALE TREVISANI, FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE INC, 100 SE 2nd St. Ste. 4320, Miami, FL 33131- 2113, ERICA SELIG & KENNETH RALPH HARTMANN, KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTO, 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th FloorMiami, FL 33134 AMADO PARRA, Plaintiff, represented by DOUGLAS WOLFE, KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP , RANDALL CHALLEN BERG, FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE INC , DANTE PASQUALE TREVISANI, FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE INC, ERICA SELIG & KENNETH RALPH HARTMANN, KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON. ARCHIE GREEN, Plaintiff, represented by DOUGLAS WOLFE, KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP , RANDALL CHALLEN BERG, FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE INC, DANTE PASQUALE TREVISANI, FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE INC, ERICA SELIG & KENNETH RALPH HARTMANN, KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON. DERRICK R PARKHURST, Intervenor Plaintiff, Pro Se. JULIE L JONES, Defendant, represented by DANIEL RYAN RUSSELL, JONES WALKER LLP -- drussell@joneswalker.com -- KIRKLAND EDWARD REID -- kreid@joneswalker.com -- JONES WALKER ETC LLP & MARC WESLEY DUNBA -- mdunbar@joneswalker.com -- JONES WALKER LLP. CORIZON LLC, Defendant, represented by JAMES TIMOTHY MOORE, JR. -- tim.moore@gray-robinson.com -- GRAYROBINSON PA, GEORGE N. MEROS, JR. -- george.meros@gray-robinson.com -- GRAYROBINSON PA, STEPHEN CLARENCE ROGERS -- srogers@maynardcooper.com -- MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC & WILLIAM RICHARD LUNSFORD -- blunsford@maynardcooper.com -- MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC. FORD MOTOR: 4,500 Car Owners Opt Out of Powershift Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Stern Law, PLLC, on Sept. 13 disclosed that Sept. 5, 2017 was the final day owners of the 2011-16 Ford Fiesta and 2012-16 Focus vehicles equipped with a PowerShift transmission could opt-out of a controversial class action settlement. A total of 4,500 owners opted out between July 5 and Sept. 5 through Stern Law, PLLC, a part of nearly 12,500 owners who have rejected the class action terms to instead pursue their legal rights under a mass action suit led by the Stern Law firm. "Utilizing federal consumer protection laws, we will file suit on behalf of the 12,500 claimants by month's end. We will be seeking a buyback, damages for the abnormal depreciation, out-of-pocket repair costs, inconvenience, lost wages and more," said Ken Stern, co-lead attorney. "Our firm's mass action represents a way for clients to seek compensation without worrying about attorney fees or losing any part of their award for representation, as Ford pays all attorney fees." Opting out as many as 4,500 owners in a two-month period was part of Stern Law's larger effort in suing Ford though its mass action. More than 25,000 individuals reached out to Stern Law. However, even working round-the-clock, the short two-month opt-out period severely limited the number of participants. Mr. Stern estimates that thousands more would have joined, but time simply ran out. "Having heard from those 25,000 owners, we know we could have easily signed several thousand more if we had more time," Mr. Stern said. "The limitation of a two month opt-out period unfairly punished owners that have already been mistreated by Ford," Stern notes. The main criticism that Novi, Mich.-based Stern Law, and other attorneys nationwide, have with the class action settlement relates to its compensation structure. While owners of these vehicles have historically had success with their claims in the courts, whether through state Lemon Law proceedings or settlements, those who did not opt-out of Ford's class action settlement will now be forced into an arbitration setting to pursue damages for a buyback moving forward. This buyback effort was also tied to an "inconvenience" payout structure that misled many into believing they would receive compensation that, as Stern contends, is almost impossible for many to attain. "When the Australian government, our 12,500 clients, and countless more that wanted to join the mass action, accuse Ford of deceptive practices regarding the transmission defects, a two month opt-out period is simply unacceptable," Mr. Stern said. "This unreasonably shortened opt-out period was likely intended to limit the number of those that would be able to opt-out, and thereby avoid the class action settlement. This will continue to punish Ford owners that have been misled and defrauded by Ford, as we've made clear in our complaint," he added. The class action settlement is scheduled for an approval hearing on Oct. 2. Objections to the settlement will be heard at that time. To follow development of the mass action lawsuit, visit FordTransmissionProblems.com and www.facebook.com/YourLegalJustice. [GN] FORD MOTOR: Beats Class Action Over Defective Vehicle Buybacks -------------------------------------------------------------- John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that Ford Motor Co. on September 13 beat a proposed class action claiming it improperly deducted certain charges when it bought back defective vehicles, with a California federal judge ruling that the deductions were part of settlements and that such agreements can't be partially enforced. Named plaintiffs Michael J. Sansoe and Eric Frazer claimed that Ford violated the Song-Beverly Act by deducting repair costs for abnormal wear and tear from the amount the company paid the men to buy back their allegedly defective trucks, but U.S. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton found that the men's claims failed as a matter of law and granted summary judgment in favor of Ford. "The challenged provisions are not severable from the fully executed settlement agreements, and plaintiffs cite no authority that would permit the court to sever portions of a fully executed and performed contract," Judge Hamilton said. Sansoe and Frazer each bought a Ford truck in November 2007 and said that during the next few years, they repeatedly brought their trucks to a Ford-affiliated repair shop. When those visits failed to solve their trucks' problems, they each retained attorney Jon Jacobs, who in late 2012 threatened to sue Ford if it didn't replace the trucks or reimburse his clients for the vehicles' full purchase price. In each case, Ford offered a refund or replacement vehicle, subject to conditions including that Sansoe and Frazer would be responsible for any missing equipment, abnormal wear or collision damage. The two men accepted the offers and sent their trucks back to Ford in exchange for payment, with each of them covering the cost of repairs for abnormal wear. They both also signed a release of all claims related to their vehicles. In October 2013, the men, represented by new lawyers, filed the instant suit, claiming that while the Song-Beverly Act allows for a mileage deduction, it doesn't allow Ford to deduct charges related to abnormal wear. They also claimed violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. Judge Hamilton noted that while a party can rescind a contract such as a settlement for certain reasons, they must also return everything of value they received under that contract to the other party. In this case, however, she said it's clear that the truck owners don't want to rescind the agreement entirely. Neither plaintiff has shown how Ford could locate and return their trucks, and the men "clearly have no interest" in repaying the money they got from Ford: $65,801 for Frazer and $53,037 for Sansoe, the judge said, ultimately finding that settlements can't be partially enforced. She also said that neither the settlements nor the challenged provisions are unconscionable, as both men were represented by lawyers and could've chosen to refuse the deals. The agreements were freely negotiated, not one-sided, and the plaintiffs haven't shown that they were illegal, the judge added. As for the CLRA claim, Judge Hamilton said that because the challenged conduct occurred after they bought the vehicles and couldn't have been deceptive acts that prompted the men to buy the trucks, it also fails as a matter of law. The UCL claim, meanwhile, failed because the men had an adequate legal remedy to resolve their issue under the Song-Beverly Act, even though the claims under that law ultimately failed as well, the judge said. Sansoe and Frazer filed their own cross-motion for summary judgment, which Judge Hamilton denied, noting that it was one page long, filed along with their opposition to Ford's summary judgment motion and devoid of any evidence or legal argument apart from their right to file a cross-motion. Ford declined comment on September 14 and the plaintiffs could not be reached for comment. Ford is represented by Amir M. Nassihi, Esq. -- anassihi@shb.com - - M. Kevin Underhill, Esq. -- kunderhill@shb.com -- and Andrew L. Chang, Esq. -- achang@shb.com -- of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP. Sansoe and Frazer are represented by Jeffrey A. Kaiser, Esq. Lawrence J. Gornick, Esq. and Dennis J. Canty, Esq. of Kaiser Gornick LLP, and Fredric L. Ellis, Edward D. Rapacki and Joseph M. Makalusky of Ellis & Rapacki LLP. The case is Sansoe et al. v. Ford Motor Co., case number 4:13-cv- 05043, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] FREIGHT HANDLERS: "Burch" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ BRANDON BURCH, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FREIGHT HANDLERS INC., a Foreign For Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-01623-GAP-TBS (M.D. Fla., Sep. 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours within a workweek. However, the Plaintiff was not properly compensated for all his overtime hours worked during the relevant periods of time. The Defendant provides product handling and logistics services to retailers, distributors, manufacturers, and carriers in the grocery industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Gunter, Esq. Paul M. Botros, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Telephone: (407) 420 1414 Facsimile: (407) 867 4791 E-mail: mgunter@forthepeople.com pbotros@forthepeople.com GE APPLIANCES: $1.2MM Settlement Reached in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Insider Louisville reports that GE Appliances and homeowners have reached a $1.2 million settlement after a 2015 fire destroyed Appliance Park Building 6 and damaged nearby homes, according to a news release from GE Appliances on September 14. Immediately after the fire, a resident who lives near GE's Appliance Park filed a class-action lawsuit against the company and Derby Industries, a distribution company that leased space in the warehouse that burned and collapsed in the massive fire. The parties reaching the deal include the law firm of Jones Ward PLC, General Electric Company and Derby Industries, the release said. At the time of the fire, GE still owned Appliance Park; it sold its Appliances division to Haier in June 2016. "We are pleased that after two years of litigation and negotiations, we were able to achieve a settlement that will provide compensation to area residents whose property may have been harmed by fire-related smoke and debris," Jasper Ward, attorney for the class, said in a statement. The parties will submit the settlement to Judge Susan Gibson of Jefferson County Circuit Court for approval and jointly administer the settlement. The firm of Gentle, Turner, Sexton & Harbison LLC, based in Birmingham, will pay out the settlement during the next year, the release stated. The $1.2 million settlement fund for the class includes all attorneys' fees and settlement administration costs, GE Appliances said. This sum is in addition to the nearly $650,000 that GE and Derby have paid to address property damage claims made by area residents. After the court has preliminarily approved the settlement, the settlement administrator will contact potential claimants with details on how to make a claim, according to the release. Anyone who does not receive a settlement notice or has questions should visit GEFireSettlement.com (not yet live) for additional details. "Although the cause of the AP-6 fire remains unknown, we're glad to work with counsel, our neighbors, and with their Metro Council members and community leaders as we continue to address the needs of neighbors whose property was impacted," Kim Freeman, a spokeswoman for GE Appliances, said in a statement. "In addition to allowing affected individuals to file claims, we're pleased that any funds that remain after claims have been satisfied will be used for neighborhood projects that can be enjoyed by the whole neighborhood," she added. [GN] GLOBALSCAPE INC: Oct. 10 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------- Safirstein Metcalf LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against GlobalSCAPE, Inc. ("GlobalSCAPE" or the "Company") (NYSE:GSB) securities and certain of its officers, on behalf of a class who purchased GlobalSCAPE shares between January 26, 2017 and August 7, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or acquired shares of GlobalSCAPE during the class period, and would like more information about the shareholder class action, please contact Safirstein Metcalf LLP at 1-800-221-0015, or email info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 10, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) GlobalSCAPE overstated the reported amounts of accounts receivable as of December 31, 2016, and license revenue for the three months and year ended December 31, 2016 by approximately $403,000 and $396,000, respectively, resulting in the overstatement of the Company's revenues for those periods by the same amounts; (2) GlobalSCAPE's total current assets and total assets were overstated by $292,000; (3) GlobalSCAPE's total stockholder equity and total liabilities and stockholders' equity were overstated by $217,000 and $292,000, respectively; (4) GlobalSCAPE lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (v) consequently, GlobalSCAPE's publicly disseminated financial statements were materially false and misleading. On August 7, 2017, after-market hours, GlobalSCAPE disclosed that its Audit Committee "has been conducting an investigation into certain transactions in the fourth quarter of 2016 involving improper arrangements with customers that circumvented the Company's internal controls and their potential effect on previously reported revenue." The Company also said that it "intends to effect a restatement of its previously issued financial statements through filing an amended Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 and an amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2017." Following this news, GlobalSCAPE stock dropped 17.66% to close at $3.87 per share on August 8, 2017. 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] GOOGLE INC: Faces "Gurno" Suit over Wallet Service -------------------------------------------------- Adam Gurno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Google, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Google Payment Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and DOE 1 through DOE 20 Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17 CVJ 15499 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 5, 2017), seeks relief arising from electronic communications and contracts made by Buyers using Defendants' Google Play store and Google Wallet service. According to the complaint, Plaintiff originally signed up and registered for Google's "Checkout" payment processing service, providing to Defendants certain PII, including his personal and credit card information (e.g., credit card numbers, name, address, zip code, email address, and telephone number), and agreeing to the then-current Checkout terms of service. In November 2011, Defendants replaced their Checkout payment processing service with Google Wallet. On May 1, 2012, Plaintiff selected from the Google Play library the "Tasker" App published by third-party Crafty Apps. Plaintiff then purchased the Tasker App for $6.49 through a Buyer Contract by sending Defendants his purchase authorization information, agreeing to the then-current GWToS, and, for first time in connection with a purchase, confirming and authorizing use, in the Buyer 15 Contract, of some information he had stored with the Defendants by clicking the button authorizing the purchase. Upon receipt of Plaintiffs purchase authorization information, Defendants debited Plaintiffs Payment Instrument, collected the $6.49 sales price, retained 30% ($1.95), and made Plaintiffs PII -- including his name, email address, and zip code -- available to App Vendor Crafty 20 Apps. Google Inc. is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products. These include online advertising technologies, search, cloud computing, software, and hardware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathryn S. Diemer, Esq. DIEMER & WEI, LLP W. San Fernando St., Ste. 555 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 971 6270 Facsimile: (408) 971 6271 E-mail: kdiemer@diemerwei.com - and - Adam E. Urbanczyk, Esq. PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC 1570 Oak Avenue, Suite 103 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 787 2717 E-mail: adam@progressivelaw.com GOOGLE INC: Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over Gender Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Kastrenakes, writing for The Verge, reports three women have filed a lawsuit against Google, accusing the company of discriminating against female employees by underpaying them and denying them opportunities for promotions. The plaintiffs seek to turn their complaint into a class action lawsuit covering all women who worked at Google within the last four years. "Google has discriminated and continues to discriminate against its female employees by systematically paying them lower compensation than Google pays to male employees performing substantially similar work under similar working conditions," the lawsuit claims. The suit was filed on behalf of three women -- Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease, and Kelli Wisuri -- who say they were placed into lower career tracks than their male co-workers and received lower salaries and bonuses because of it. They assert that Google's actions violate California law, including the California Equal Pay Act, and are asking for lost wages and damages, and for Google to be forced to correct its allegedly discriminatory hiring practices. Google denies the allegations. "In relation to this particular lawsuit, we'll review it in detail, but we disagree with the central allegations," Gina Scigliano, senior manager of corporate communications at Google, writes in an emailed statement. Scigliano also says that Google has "extensive systems in place to ensure that we pay fairly." This lawsuit is far from the first claim of gender-based pay discrimination at Google. The US Department of Labor is currently investigating the company's hiring practices and, earlier this year, testified in court that it found "systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce." Earlier this month, The New York Times published salary data, compiled by nearly 1,200 Google employees, showing disparities in both salaries and bonuses across pay grades. The three women say they were put on lower tiers than their male colleagues and limited in their opportunities to move up the ladder. Ellis says she was hired with four years of experience and placed at Level 3, where new college graduates are often placed; weeks later, the suit claims, a male colleague with the same amount of experience was hired into Level 4. Ellis also claims she was put on the less-prestigious front-end development team, despite having experience in backend development. The backend team, the suit says, is higher paid and almost exclusively men. Wisuri has a similar story. The suit says she was hired into a Level 2 sales role, while men with similar qualifications entered at Level 3. Men were more often hired into roles that received commission, too, the suit claims. Pease entered Google with 10 years of experience as a network engineer and oversaw a team of "technical" staff, but she wasn't considered to be a "technical" employee herself, thus limiting her pay, according to the lawsuit. The suit claims she was denied the opportunity to transition to the "technical" classification, and after returning from medical leave, was moved out of engineering entirely. Ellis, Wisuri, and Pease all left Google over the past three years. Scigliano, at Google, says Google's hiring process is designed to eliminate gender biases. "Job levels and promotions are determined through rigorous hiring and promotion committees, and must pass multiple levels of review, including checks to make sure there is no gender bias in these decisions," she writes. James Finberg, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, says he believes the suit will be able to win class action status and cover all women at Google over the last four years. "I think those chances are very high," he says, "because the statistical evidence that the Department of Labor collected and The New York Times collected indicate that there are statistically significant disparities adverse to women across the board." Finberg says he plans to request the same pay information that Google turned over to the Department of Labor and deliver an analysis to the court. Finberg's law firm, Altshuler Berzon, focuses on cases dealing with "economic justice." The suit got started, he said, after the firm put out a call for stories about discrimination inside Google. Ninety people responded, he said, including the three women listed on the suit. [GN] GRUBHUB: Trial Begins in Delivery Driver's Suit ----------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that whether a Grubhub delivery driver was "his own boss" or controlled by his employer was the pivotal question on the first day of a bench trial that could have far-reaching implications for the gig economy. Raef Lawson, an aspiring actor from Los Angeles, claims Grubhub misclassified him as an independent contractor and denied him minimum wage, overtime pay and reimbursement of expenses. Lawson's attorney, Shannon Liss-Riordan, who has represented workers in class actions in San Francisco against Lyft and Uber, said this is the first case to make it to trial in California challenging a startup's classification of an employee as an independent contractor. "We're not going to take on the whole gig economy in this one trial," Liss-Riordan said in her opening statement Tuesday. "We are biting off a little piece of it." The case centers on whether Lawson was misclassified as a contractor. U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied a motion for class certification last year, finding Lawson could not represent a class of delivery drivers because he did not sign an arbitration agreement like other drivers. Liss-Riordan on September 5, ran down the list of ways GrubHub exerted control over her client: by tracking his location, requiring him to accept nearly all delivery orders within 20 seconds, and threatening to terminate his shifts or job if he failed to obey those orders. Grubhub attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. painted a different picture in his opening argument. He said Grubhub offers a system that benefits workers like Lawson because they can set their own flexible hours and make money while pursuing their dreams. "It's abundantly clear this flexibility was important to Mr. Lawson because when you're pursuing a job in the entertainment industry, you need all the flexibility you can get," Boutrous said. Lawson set his own schedule and was never required to work a certain amount of hours. He could wear what he wanted, take whatever routes he chose for his deliveries, and even hire or designate others to make deliveries for him, Boutrous said. But Liss-Riordan argued that Lawson had to sport a Grubhub hat and shirt or pay extra to rent an insulated bag for deliveries. Grubhub also required drivers wear closed-toed shoes. Although Lawson's contract allowed him to hire or designate others to make deliveries for him, the low pay and inability to redirect orders through the app made that option impractical, Liss-Riordan said. She contested Grubhub's claim that Lawson could set his own hours. The most desirable scheduling blocks were often gobbled up before Lawson could sign up for them, forcing him to sign up for whatever shifts he could get, she said. "GrubHub says you can pick your hours," Liss-Riordan said. "As a practical matter, it was pretty slim pickings." Boutrous said the fact that Lawson worked for at least 11 other "gig economy" startups while working for Grubhub supports the argument that he was a free agent and independent contractor. He said Grubhub has evidence that Lawson made deliveries for other services such as Postmates and Caviar during his scheduled shifts with Grubhub. Additionally, Boutrous pointed out that Lawson deducted expenses as a contractor when filing his tax returns and that in a deposition, when asked what he would say he did for a living in 2015, Lawson answered, "mainly an independent contractor." Liss-Riordan countered that just because Lawson signed a contract stating that he was a contractor and would abide by Grubhub's terms to make money, that doesn't mean he was a contractor. "He was not in the business of food delivery," Liss-Riordan said. "He was delivering for a company. He wasn't making business decisions as a business owner. He was just trying to pay the rent." One factor that affects Lawson's classification is whether his work supported the company's core or principal business. That's one of 11 sub-factors the California Supreme Court established to determine whether a worker is an employee or contractor in the 1989 ruling, S.G. Borello & Sons Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations. Boutrous told the judge that Grubhub started in Chicago in 2004 as a platform to help market restaurants, "especially independent mom and pops," to broader audiences. The company's core business remains marketing, and the food delivery service launched in 2014 is merely "a small part" of the business, Boutrous said. But Liss-Riordan said the company employs thousands of drivers across the country and that food delivery is "a growing part of its business." Wrapping up her opening statement, Liss-Riordan said she intends to prove that Grubhub paid her client only half the money he is owed for mileage reimbursement, less than minimum wage on several days, and no overtime when he worked over 40 hours. Liss-Riordan said there are "potentially a lot of people waiting out there in the wings" to see how this case shakes out. "We look forward to arguing our case after the evidence is submitted," she said. Lawson took the stand as the first witness on September 5, and was expected to continue testifying on September 6. HEALTH INSURANCE: Nov. 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Khang & Khang LLP disclosed the filing of a securities class action lawsuit against Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between August 2, 2017 and September 11, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm in advance of the November 10, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. If you purchased Health Insurance Innovations shares during the Class Period, please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang LLP, 4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250, Irvine, CA 92604, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com. There has been no class certification in this case yet. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member as well. According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Health Insurance Innovations made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: that the Company's application for a third-party insurance administrators license with the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation was denied due partly to material errors and omissions; that the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation's rejection of its application for a third-party insurance administrators license could result in its losing licenses in the other states; and as a result of the above, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When this news was announced, shares of Health Insurance Innovation declined in value materially, which caused investors harm according to the Complaint. Joon M. Khang, Esq. Khang & Khang LLP Telephone: 949-419-3834 Facsimile: 949-225-4474 joon@khanglaw.com [GN] IDEAL CONCEPTS: "Gould" Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled CATHERINE GOULD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. IDEAL CONCEPTS, INC., doing business as: AMERICAN INSURANCE ORGANIZATION, the Defendant, Case No. 17-04852, was transferred on Sep. 7, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago), to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Allentown). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-03984-JFL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. Ideal Concepts started in the insurance sales and technology industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine P. Sons, Esq. James X. Bormes, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X BORMES PC 8 South Michigan Ave Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201 0575 - and - Christopher Elisha Roberts, Esq. David T. Butsch, Esq. BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 231 S Bemiston Ave Suite 260 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863 5700 E-mail: butsch@bsflawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. James Dominick Larry, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLAND COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP 333 WEST WACKER DR., SUITE 1900 CHICAGO, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 212 4949 Facsimile: (312) 767 9192 E-mail: DAlmeida@beneschlaw.com meisen@beneschlaw.com ILLINOIS HUMAN SERVICES DEPT: Faces Home Health Workers Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Dionne Cordell-Whitney, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a class of home health care workers and personal assistants claims Illinois refuses to increase their wages by 48 cents per hour even though the pay raise was mandated by an amendment to state law. Service Employees International Union Healthcare Illinois & Indiana and three members filed a class-action complaint on September 6, against Illinois Department of Human Services Secretary James Dimas and Michael M. Hoffman, acting director of the state's Department of Central Management Services. Lead plaintiff Virginia Grant and two other state workers, Alantris Muhammad and Cynthia Sylvia, brought the Cook County Circuit Court lawsuit seeking to require Illinois to implement a 48-cent-per-hour wage increased mandated by the Illinois Public Act. According to the complaint, the law was amended in July to include the 48-cent raise for workers in the DHS Home Services Program, which was set to take effect Aug. 5. "Nonetheless, and contrary to Illinois statute, the DHS Secretary and CMS Director have failed and refused to implement that wage increase," the lawsuit states. "As a result of defendants' unlawful actions, some of the state of Illinois' lowest paid employees (personal assistants currently make only $13 an hour), who provide the vital service of assisting people with disabilities to live safely and independent in their homes, have been denied a needed raise to which they have a legal right." Grant says she has worked as a personal assistant in the DHS Home Services Program since 2003. The program provides home care services to people with severe disabilities. Workers include personal assistants, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, certified nursing assistants, and physical, occupation, and speech therapists, according to the lawsuit. About 28,000 providers represented by the union work in the program, and the majority of the workers are personal assistants, the complaint states. Though the Service Employees International Union and Illinois are currently in negotiations for a replacement to a 2012-2015 collective bargaining agreement, the old wages are still in effect, the workers say. The amendment to the Illinois Public Act mandating the pay increase passed on July 6, after both houses of the General Assembly voted to override Gov. Bruce Rauner's veto of the bill, according to the lawsuit. Grant and her co-plaintiffs say the DHS has the legal authority to give the mandated raises to Home Services Program workers because funds have been appropriated for the program. In response to the workers' demand for a wage increase, a representative for the DHS allegedly told the union that it would implement the wage increase only after bargaining with the union. "Just as with other statutory increases in minimum labor standards, such as a statutory minimum wage increase, DHS and CMS are not obligated to bargain with SEIU before implementing the $0.48 wage increase for personal assistants and individual maintenance home workers," the complaint states. "Alternatively, to the extent such a duty to bargain exists under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, such duty was fulfilled when SEIU . . .consented to DHS and CMS implementing the wage increase effective August 5, 2017." DHS spokesperson Jason Schaumburg said in a statement that Illinois and unions are required to engage in collective bargaining over wages under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. "Under that same statute, the agreements the State and the union reach over wage increases take precedence over any conflicting law. The Labor Act also requires both the State and unions to abide by the status quo while they are bargaining over a new collective bargaining agreement," he said. "The State and SEIU have been engaged in such negotiations as recently as late last month. The State remains willing to discuss issues with SEIU that are properly subject to collective bargaining, including wages, and calls on SEIU to use the statutorily-required bargaining process rather than seek to make an end run around that process through litigation." The union and its workers are represented by lead attorney Robert E. Bloch -- gluscombe@laboradvocates.com -- with Dowd Bloch in Chicago. IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Hovermale Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled JENNIFER D. HOVERMALE, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMMEDIATE CREDIT RECOVERY, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-05646-RBK- JS (D.N.J.), Ms. Jennifer D. Hovermale will move the Court on October 16, 2017, for an order: 1. enforcing and granting preliminary approval to the parties' class action settlement agreement; and 2. certifying Settlement Class, fixing a date for a final approval hearing, and approving the form and method for class notice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SITbTLQx The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1315 Telephone: (973) 379 7500 JESSE CASARES: JT's Frames Bid for Class Cert. Terminated as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JT's Frames, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. Jesse Casares, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02504 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order terminating Plaintiff's second amended "Damasco" motion for class certification as moot. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 15, 2017, Plaintiff's second amended "Damasco" motion for class certification is terminated as moot, as it is replaced with Plaintiff's third amended "Damasco" motion for class certification which is entered and continued generally. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xuTHQw1t JIM FISCHER: Employee Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOSHUA LAUGHLIN, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. JIM FISCHER, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01342-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and court authorization to send notice to potential class members on behalf of: "all persons who are or were employed by Jim Fischer, Inc. as hourly jobsite employees during the time period on or after October 6, 2013". The Court further ordered that (1) the form and content of the Notice of Pendency of Lawsuit (ECF No. 23-1) and the Consent to Opt In and Participate as a Named Plaintiff in Suit for Violations of Fair Labor Standards Act (ECF No. 23-2) are approved; (2) Defendant must within 10 days provide Plaintiffs with an electronic list of names and addresses of all class members; and (3) the collective class members are allowed 45 days from the mailing of the notice to opt into this action. The Court also ordered that the parties' joint motion to amend the scheduling order is granted. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Defendant's Motion for FLSA decertification are due on or before December 3, 2017. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MPb4SdyX JOHN B SANFILIPPO: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Ramos, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons v. John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc., Case No. 1:17- cv-06450 (N.D. Ill., September 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay hourly production workers for all time worked, including the time spent donning and doffing required safety equipment and work clothes and the time spent obtaining said equipment at the start of a work shift. John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. procures, processes, and packages nuts for its brands, Fisher Nuts and Sunshine Country, as well as for its customers' brands. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. Alexis D. Martin, Esq. CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD. 224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 763-6880 E-mail: info@caffarelli.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Says Benecol Adheres to Regulation ----------------------------------------------------- Glenn Minnis, writing Legal Newsline, reports that the makers of Benecol food products have filed motion to dismiss a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the lawsuit, filed in May, the plaintiff alleged the Benecol maker "falsely and misleadingly" labeled some spread products as containing "no trans fats" and "no trans fatty acids." Defendants Johnson & Johnson and McNeil Nutritionals allege that they have adhered to and satisfied all federal regulations requiring that "manufacturers of foods that contain less than 0.5 gram of trans fats label the products as containing zero gram, or '0g,' trans-fat," in their Benecol spreads, the July 21 motion states. Suzanna Bowling filed suit individually and on behalf of those similarly situated in May, naming Johnson & Johnson and McNeil Nutritionals as defendants. She alleged that their Benecol spread products were falsely represented to consumers as being sans any trans fats or trans fatty acids when all the while they were made using hydrogenated oils she considers to be unsafe, according to the motion to dismiss. Bowling further claimed the blatant deception caused her financial harm by fraudulently leading her to purchase products she would have otherwise had no interest in. The defendants stipulated that since Benecol is a federally regulated food product, it is subject to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and precluded from the state law guidelines Bowling's suit sought to subject it to. In requesting a trial by jury, Bowling's suit sought compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, restitution, injunctive relief, attorney fees and court costs. She is represented by attorneys Scott A. Bursor, Joseph I. Marchese, Neal J. Deckant and Frederick J. Klorczyk III of Bursor & Fisher PC in New York. Johnson and McNeil are represented by Katherine A. Garceau, Esq.- Katherine.garceautuckellis.com -- an associate with the Tucker Ellis law firm based in Chicago. [GN] KITE PHARMA: Faces "Berg" Class Suit Over Sale to Gilead Sciences ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Berg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kite Pharma, Inc., Arie Belldegrum, M.D., Facs, David Bonderman, Farah Champsi, Ian Clark, Roy Doumani, Franz Humer, Joshua A. Kazam, Ran Nussbaum, Jon Peacock, Steven B. Ruchefsky, Owen N. Witte, Gilead Sciences, Inc., and Dodgers Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-06583 (C.D. Cal., September 7, 2017), arises from a proposed transaction announced on August 28, 2017, pursuant to which Kite Pharma, Inc. will be acquired by Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Parent's wholly-owned subsidiary, Dodgers Merger Sub, Inc. for $180.00 per share in cash. According to the complaint, Kite filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that Kite stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the Statement omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things, "Past Contacts, Transactions, Negotiations and Agreements", and "The Solicitation or Recommendation." The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest Kite's public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets without fully disclosing all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy defendants' Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such problems are remedied. Kite Pharma, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the development of innovative cancer immunotherapies with a goal of providing rapid, long-term, durable response and eliminating the burden of chronic care. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com KOHL'S CORP: Renewed Class Certification Bid Terminated as Moot --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Mark Ankcorn, the Plaintiff, v. Kohl's Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-01303 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order terminating a renewed preliminary motion for class certification as moot. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 15, 2017, Plaintiff's renewed preliminary motion for class certification is terminated as moot, as it is replaced with Plaintiff's renewed preliminary motion for class certification, which is entered and continued generally. Notice of motion date of Sep. 28 2017, is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=17e6VUFN LIFE ALERT: Sued Over Failure to Properly Compensate Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Askandar, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees v. Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC675242 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation, provide properly itemized wage statements, and separately compensate indoor salespersons for paid meal and rest breaks. Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. operates a medical monitoring service business located at 11500 W. Olympic Blvd. #415, Los Angeles, CA 90064. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Gammill, Esq. Eric Y. Hahn, Esq. GERAGOS & GERAGOS 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017-341 Telephone (213) 625-3900 Facsimile (213)232-3255 E-mail: Geragos@Geragos.com LINCOLN HILLS, WI: Judge Certifies Youth Prison Class ----------------------------------------------------- CBS Minnesota reports that a federal judge has given class action status to juvenile inmates in a lawsuit over conditions and practices at the youth prison complex in northern Wisconsin. U.S. District Judge James Peterson issued the decision on September 15 following previous rulings that found the civil rights of the youth offenders were likely being violated and that changes needed to be made in how Lincoln Hills School for Boys and Copper Lake School for Girls operate. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin and the Juvenile Law Center. Peterson's decision means the plaintiffs' attorneys will represent all present and future inmates at the prison campus near Irma. Peterson's earlier orders including one that required the prisons to curb their use of solitary confinement, pepper spray and handcuffs. [GN] MARKSTEIN BEVERAGE: Faces "Marshall" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Markstein Beverage Co. The case is captioned as Ryan Marshall on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Markstein Beverage Co., the Defendant, Case No. 34-2017-00218737-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 7, 2017). Markstein Beverage is doing business in beer industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade St. San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234 2833 MDL 2591: Certification of 12 Corn Producers Classes Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit RE: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, Case No. 2:14-md-02591-JWL-JPO (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs move to certify statewide classes composed of: "U.S. corn producers from twelve of the remaining thirteen states pleaded in Producer Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Action Master Complaint ("TAC"): Alabama, Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin (the "Additional State Classes")." 1. The Alabama Class, asserting claims for common law negligence and tortious interference (TAC 421-34); 2. The Colorado Class, asserting a claim for common law negligence (TAC 471-76); 3. The Indiana Class, asserting claims for common law negligence and tortious interference (TAC 529-42); 4. The Kentucky Class, asserting a claim for common law negligence (TAC 577-82); 5. The Louisiana Class, asserting a claim for common law negligence and a claim for Damage to Movables under La. Civ. Code art. 2315(A) (TAC 589-99); 6. The Michigan Class, asserting a claim for common law negligence (TAC 600-04); 7. The Mississippi Class, asserting a claim for common law negligence (TAC 649-54); 8. The North Dakota Class, asserting claims for common law negligence and tortious interference with business (TAC 719-24, 739-46); 9. The Oklahoma Class, asserting claims for common law negligence and tortious interference (TAC 782-95); 10. The Tennessee Class, asserting claims for common law negligence and tortious interference (TAC 814-27); 11. The Texas Class, asserting a claim for common law negligence (TAC 839-44); and 12. The Wisconsin Class, asserting a claim for common law negligence (TAC 857-62). Each of the Additional State Classes consists of all corn producers in that respective state who priced their corn for sale after November 18, 2013. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court for an appointment of Class Counsel for the additional State Classes. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eqK5PEUh The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714 7100 E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com - and - Don M. Downing, Esq. GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C. 701 Market Street, Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-5620 E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com - and - William B. Chaney, Esq. GRAY REED & MCGRAW, P.C. 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (469) 320-6031 E-mail: wchaney@grayreed.com - and - Scott Powell, Esq. HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON 2025 3rd Ave. North, Suite 800 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-5330 E-mail: scott@hwnn.com MORNING CALL: Hernandez Seeks Conditional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ANTONIA HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MORNING CALL COFFEE STAND, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02613-EEF-JVM (E.D. La.), Ms. Antonia Hernandez moves the Court for conditional class certification, approval of judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of potential "opt-in" plaintiffs. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FR2NaIhD The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534 5005 E-mail: eaw@beaumontcostales.com NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: "Wiegand" Remanded to Calif. Super. Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court, Eastern District of California, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the case captioned ROBERT MICHAEL WIEGAND, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, INC., an Ohio corporation, Defendant, No. 2:17-cv-00246-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs is denied. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Robert Wiegand's (Plaintiff) Motion to Remand. Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento against Defendant on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. Plaintiff alleges claims pursuant to the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code Sections 1788-1788.33 which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices, and California Civil Code Sections 1812.700-1812.702 which requires that California consumers be provided a Consumer Collection Notice. Plaintiff defines the class as all persons with addresses in California (ii) to whom Defendants sent, or caused to be sent, an initial written communication in the form of Exhibit 1 in an attempt to collect a defaulted consumer debt originally owed to Bank of America, N.A. Defendant filed a Notice of Removal, alleging that the District Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiff filed the instant motion to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a). However, if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). CAFA gives federal district courts jurisdiction where: (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; (2) the number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate is 100 or greater; and (3) there is minimal diversity between the defendants and plaintiffs. The only question before the Court is whether Defendant has established by a legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Defendant contends in its opposition that the estimated amount in controversy is in excess of $5,000,000. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's calculations are not only too speculative, but also completely impossible because Defendant assumes without support that the combined claims of all class members will exceed $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiff contends the statute caps recovery at $1000 for individual claims and $500,000 for class claims. Defendant counters Plaintiff cannot limit the damages of putative class members prior to class certification. Defendant further contends Plaintiff cannot legally bind any unnamed members of the proposed class to disclaim any recovery other than statutory damages until the class is certified. Defendant has failed to provide any evidentiary calculations in support of its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, the Court held. Defendant alleges that the aggregated claims of all class members may theoretically exceed the jurisdictional limit of $5 million. These allegations, although attempting to recite some 'magical incantation,' neither overcomes the 'strong presumption against removal jurisdiction,' nor satisfies Defendant's burden of setting forth the underlying facts supporting its assertion for the amount in controversy, the Court held. Defendant has not brought forth any calculations to persuade the Court that its assumption that unnamed class members will bring aggregate claims exceeding $5,000,000 is a legal certainty. Plaintiff has failed to submit an affidavit to evidence his eligibility for an award of reasonable costs and fees. L.R. 293(c)(1). While rough estimates of Plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs have been provided within Plaintiff's Reply in support of his Motion to Remand, these estimates are inadequate to support an award of attorney's fees and costs. Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), it does not appear that Defendant removed the case without a reasonable basis for removal or in an attempt to delay litigation or impose costs on Plaintiff. The Court cannot say Defendant's removal was objectively unreasonable as would warrant the award of attorney's fees. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs is denied. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is granted and Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yddp27tmfrom Leagle.com. Robert Michael Wiegand, Plaintiff, represented by Fred W. Schwinn, Consumer Law Center, Inc., 12 S 1st St Ste 1014, San Jose, CA 95113-2418 Robert Michael Wiegand, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Craig Salmonsen, Consumer Law Center, Inc. & Raeon Rodrigo Roulston, Consumer Law Center, Inc., 12 S 1st St Ste 1014, San Jose, CA 95113-2418 National Enterprise Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark E. Ellis, Ellis Law Group, LLP. Suite 400, 1425 River Park Drive Sacramento, California 95815 NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Metzger" Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit Inc. The case is captioned as Chaya Metzger on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nationwide Credit Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06729-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Sep. 5, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Valerie E. Caproni. Nationwide Credit, a collection agency, provides customer relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salim Katach, Esq. MOULINOS AND ASSOCIATES 150 East 58th Street New York, NY 10155 Telephone: (347) 415 2711 E-mail: skatach@svhllp.com NATURES BEST: "Andrade" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Edward Andrade, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Natures Best, KeHE Distributors, Inc. f/k/a Doe 1 Erroneously Sued As KeHE Distributors LLC, and Does 2 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS1508659, was removed on September 7, 2017, from the Superior Court of the State of California, San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-01826-AG-KK to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges employment discrimination. The Defendants operate a natural food distribution company in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE PC 410 West Arden Avenue Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Steve L. Hernandez, Esq. Evelina Shpolyansky, Esq. Scott J. Witlin, Esq. BARNES AND THORNBURG LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 284-3880 Facsimile: (310) 284-3894 E-mail: shernandez@btlaw.com evelina.shpolyansky@btlaw.com scott.witlin@btlaw.com NIKE INC: Judge Dismisses Workers' Suit Over Security Checks ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge on Sept. 12 said Nike Inc's retail arm was not required to pay workers in California for the few seconds each day that they spent going through security checks, and tossed out a class action against the company. U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose said Oregon-based Nike had shown that the 10,000 class members spent an average of 18 seconds being inspected before they left retail stores, and that amount of time was "de minimis" and not compensable under California law. Nike is represented by Seyfarth Shaw and the plaintiffs by Diversity Law Group. [GN] NEW YORK: Public Advocate Has No Capacity to Sue, Court Rules ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Third Cause of Action of the Amended Class Action Complaint in the case captioned ELISA W., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, No. 15 CV 5273-LTS-HBP (S.D.N.Y.). Defendant Sheila J. Poole (Commissioner), Acting Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children of Family Services (OCFS), has moved to dismiss the Third Cause of Action of the operative Amended Class Action Complaint. The Third Cause of Action in the AC asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 arising under Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA). In the Third Cause of Action, the Public Advocate and the putative class of named plaintiff children assert, inter alia, claims against the Commissioner for violation of various sections of AACWA. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. The Court accepts as true the non-conclusory factual allegations in the complaint and draws all inferences in the Plaintiff's favor. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b)(3), the Public Advocate's capacity to sue is determined by the law of the State of New York, where the Court is located. Under New York law, governmental entities like the Public Advocate have neither an inherent nor a common-law right to sue. The capacity of the Public Advocate to sue in the context of the enumerated responsibilities of that official under the New York City Charter is well-established. However, that capacity is not unlimited, the Court pointed out. In cases involving the scope of the Public Advocate's capacity to sue, New York courts have described the Public Advocate's role as being in essence, to oversee city agencies, perform related investigations, and attempt to resolve individual complaints concerning city services. The Public Advocate cites no case in which she or her predecessors was held to have capacity to sue a State agency or its officers, the Court pointed out. The case on which the Public Advocate principally relies, In re Long Island College Hospital, explicitly recognized the general rule that the Public Advocate does not have authority to bring a proceeding against a state government agency and noted that recognizing the Public Advocate's capacity to sue in that case does not deviate from those rulings as the instant matter does not challenge the actions of a state agency acting as such. Thus, rather than supporting the Public Advocate's position, In re Long Island College Hospital only reaffirms the general proposition that the Public Advocate does not have the capacity to sue a state agency. Accordingly, the Court concludes that, under New York law, the Public Advocate does not have the capacity to sue a State agency or its officers in their official capacity, and the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the Public Advocate's claims against her is granted. The Commissioner also moves to dismiss the Named Plaintiff Childrens' claims under AACWA. These arguments are addressed by the 2016 Opinion, which governs as the law of the case. When a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case. Although the Commissioner correctly notes that the law of the case doctrine does not preclude the Court from revisiting its prior holdings, the Court declines to do so here. The Court has reviewed carefully the Commissioner's arguments, and concludes that they provide no basis to undermine the Court's conclusions in the 2016 Opinion, whose reasoning is adopted here in full. Accordingly, the Third Cause of Action is dismissed as against the Commissioner to the extent stated in the 2016 Opinion, and the Commissioner's motion is otherwise denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9obn9jgfrom Leagle.com. Ayanna J., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 212-474-1512 Ayanna J., Plaintiff, represented by Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 212-474-1512, Marcia Robinson Lowry, A Better Childhood, Molly Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Nicole Marie Peles, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Rachel Jennifer Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 212-474-1512, Dameon C., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Marcia Robinson Lowry, A Better Childhood, Molly Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Nicole Marie Peles, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Rachel Jennifer Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. Letitia James, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. Levy, Office of The Public Advocate, Molly Anne Thomas-Jensen, Public Advocate for the City of New York & Nicole Marie Peles, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. Olivia R., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Marcia Robinson Lowry, A Better Childhood, Molly Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Nicole Marie Peles, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Rachel Jennifer Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. Valentina T.C., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Molly Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Rachel Jennifer Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. Matthew V., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Molly Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Rachel Jennifer Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. Mikayla G., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Molly Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Rachel Jennifer Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. Myls J., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Molly Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Rachel Jennifer Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. Jose T.C., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Molly Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Rachel Jennifer Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. Lucas T., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Molly Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Rachel Jennifer Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. Emmanuel S., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Molly Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Rachel Jennifer Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. Ximena T., Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Lynn Sukiennik, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Claire Botnick, Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, Justin Conrad Clarke, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Molly Montgomery Jamison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Rachel Jennifer Lamorte, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Sarah W. Jaffe, A Better Childhood, Scott Bartron Reents, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. City of New York, Defendant, represented by Agnetha Elizabeth Jacob, New York City Law Department, Jonathan L. Pines, NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Lauren Almquist Lively, New York City Law Department & Neil Anthony Giovanatti, New York City Law Department. New York City Administration for Childrens Services, Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Pines, NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Lauren Almquist Lively, New York City Law Department & Neil Anthony Giovanatti, New York City Law Department. Gladys Carrion, Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Pines, NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Lauren Almquist Lively, New York City Law Department & Neil Anthony Giovanatti, New York City Law Department. Sheila J. Poole, Defendant, represented by Antoinette W. Blanchette, New York State Office of the Attorney General, Cara Brown Chomski, State of New York Office of the Attorney General, Roderick Leopold Arz, New York State Office of the Attorney General & Samantha Leigh Buchalter, New York State Office of the Attorney General. The Legal Aid Society, Intervenor, represented by Celia Goldwag Barenholtz -- cbarenholtz@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Kara Corinne Wilson -- kwilson@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Lisa Freeman, The Legal Aid Society, Stephanie B. Turner -- stephanie.turner@skadden.com -- Cooley LLP, Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, Theresa Beth Moser, The Legal Aid Society & Victoria Anna Foltz -- vfoltz@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP. Lawyers for Children, Inc., Intervenor, represented by Betsy Kramer, Lawyers For Children, Celia Goldwag Barenholtz, Cooley LLP, Kara Corinne Wilson, Cooley LLP, Karen J. Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., Stephanie B. Turner, Cooley LLP & Victoria Anna Foltz, Cooley LLP. The Children's Law Center of New York, Intervenor, represented by Celia Goldwag Barenholtz, Cooley LLP, Kara Corinne Wilson, Cooley LLP, Stephanie B. Turner, Cooley LLP & Victoria Anna Foltz, Cooley LLP. Center for Family Representation, Intervenor, represented by Audra Jan Solowa -, asoloway@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Charles Jordan Hamilton -- chamilton@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Daniel H. Levi -- dlevi@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Luke Xavier Flynn- Fitzsimmons -- fitzsimmons@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Bronx Defenders, Intervenor, represented by Audra Jan Soloway, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Charles Jordan Hamilton, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Daniel H. Levi, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Luke Xavier Flynn-Fitzsimmons, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. NORTHERN MARIANAS: Sept. 27 Retirement Fund Status Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Manabat, writing for Variety News, reports that the District Court for the NMI Magistrate Judge Joaquin V.E. Manibusan Jr. has summoned Secretary of Finance Larrisa Larson and Gov. Ralph Deleon Guerrero Torres or, in his absence, Lt. Gov. Victor Borja Hocog, to a status hearing scheduled for Sept. 27, 2017 regarding the Betty Johnson class action against the Retirement Fund. The federal clerk of court at the same time noted the receipt of a letter from Mariano Taitano a retiree member in the class action who said he is disappointed with the Settlement Fund trustee, Joyce Tang. Two weeks ago, Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood ordered Tang and other parties to report whether all issues in the Betty Johnson's class action have been resolved, and whether the case can now be closed in light of the settlement. The federal judge instructed Tang to make a presentation on Sept 27, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. In 2013, a global settlement agreement was reached in Johnson's class action against the Retirement Fund and the CNMI government. The agreement settles the issue on how the Retirement Fund could collect from the CNMI government and eventually pay the retirees and refund the employees' contributions. The Settlement Fund is a not-for-profit, tax-exempt entity created by the court-approved settlement agreement. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Governor Torres was automatically substituted as the defendant in Betty Johnson's class action. [GN] O'REILLY AUTO: "Davidson" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled KIA DAVIDSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware corporation; O'REILLY AUTO PARTS, a business entity of unknown form; CSK AUTO, INC., an Arizona corporation; CSK AUTO PARTS, a business entity of unknown form, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv- 00603-RGK-AJW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on December 4, 2017, for an order: 1. certifying following classes: "all persons who worked for Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly paid employee in California (excluding Assistant Store Managers and Store Managers) at any time from March 29, 2016 until April 2017. (The "Wage Statement Class") and "all persons who worked for Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly paid employee in California (excluding Assistant Store Managers and Store Managers) at any time from March 29, 2013 until the date of certification. (The Rest Period Policy Class".) 2. appointing Plaintiff Kia Davidson as class representative; and 3. appointing Capstone Law APC as class counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4aLJHgZ4 The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Theriault, Esq. Robert J. Drexler, Jr., Esq. Jonathan Lee, Esq. Natalie Torbati, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556 4811 Facsimile: (310) 943 0396 E-mail: Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com Natalie.Torbati@CapstoneLawyers.com PETMED EXPRESS: Faces "Marchese" Suit over Securities Laws ---------------------------------------------------------- PAUL MARCHESE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PETMED EXPRESS, INC., MENDERES AKDAG and BRUCE S. ROSENBLOOM, the Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-81019- DMM (S.D. Fla., Sep. 7, 2017), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired PetMed securities between May 23, 2017 and August 22, 2017, both dates inclusive. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) PetMed engaged in questionable practices in connection with the sales and marketing of the Company's opioid products; (ii) the foregoing conduct, when it became known, would likely subject the Company to heightened legal and regulatory scrutiny; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, PetMed's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 23, 2017, Aurelius Value published a report entitled "PetMed: Exploiting America's Opioid Epidemic," alleging that the Company targets opioid users with Google ads and other marketing techniques aimed at facilitating the abuse of opioids. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. PetMed Express, Inc. and its subsidiaries, doing business as 1-800-PetMeds, operates as a pet pharmacy in the United States. The Company markets prescription and non-prescription pet medications, health products, and supplies for dogs and cats to retail customers. Founded in 1996, the Company is headquartered in Delray Beach, Florida. PetMed's stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select under the ticker symbol "PETS."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1625 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 320 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515 0123 Facsimile: (866) 300 7367 E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661 1100 Facsimile: (212) 661 8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697 6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: "Brenner" Suit Seeks to Certify Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled VERONICA BRENNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROCTER & GAMBLE CO., the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01093-JLS-JCG (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on January 12, 2018, for an order certifying classes defined as: Multistate Breach of Express Warranty Class: "all Persons who purchased one or more units of Pampers Natural Clean Wipes in the states of California, Delaware, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia from June 14, 2012 to September 3, 2017, excluding persons who purchased for purpose of resale"; California Class: "all Persons who purchased one or more units of Pampers Natural Clean Wipes in the state of California from June 14, 2012 to September 3, 2017, excluding persons who purchased for purpose of resale"; and Florida Class: "all Persons who purchased one or more units of Pampers Natural Clean Wipes in the state of Florida from June 14, 2012 to September 3, 2017, excluding persons who purchased for purpose of resale." The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Veronica Brenner as Class representative of the Multistate Breach of Express Warranty and California Classes and appoint Angela Banegas as Class representative of the Florida Class, and appoint their counsel, Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mrsP6zHD The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300 4455 Facsimile: (925) 407 2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jsmith@bursor.com scott@bursor.com ykopel@bursor.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338 1100 Facsimile: (619) 338 1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com - and - Joseph M. Pustizzi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH PUSTIZZI, P.A. E-mail: joseph@pustizzilaw.com 3440 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 415 Hollywood, FL 30021 6933 PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC: "Rolon" Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ISMAEL MARRERO ROLON, ANNE CATESBY JONES, JORGE VALDES LLAUGER, PUERTO RICO BATHROOM REMODELING, INC., PERFORMANCE CHEMICALS COMPANY, INC., the Plaintiffs, v. AUTORIDAD DE ENERGI ELECTRICA A/K/A PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY; WILLIAM RODNEY CLARK; EDWIN RODRIGUEZ; CESAR TORRES MARRERO; INSPECTORATE AMERICA CORPORATION; CORE LABORATORIES N.V. D/B/A SAYBOLT; ALTOL CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY INC. D/B/A ALCHEM LABORATORY; ALTOL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. D/B/A ALTOL ENTERPRISES; PETROBRAS AMERICA INC.; PETROLEO BRASILEIRO S.A; CARLOS R. MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES; SHELL TRADING (US) COMPANY; TRAFIGURA A.G.; TRAFIGURA BEHEER B.V.; TRAFIGURA LIMITED; TRAFIGURA ARGENTINA S.A.; PETROWEST, INC.; VITOL S.A., INC.; VITOL, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv- 01167-JAG-MEL (D.P.R.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a Class of: "all persons or entities that paid a fuel oil surcharge on their electricity bill to the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (a/k/a Autoridad de Energia Electrica) during the period January 1, 2002 to April 30, 2016"; 2. appointing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel; 3. appointing Plaintiffs Jorge Valdes Llauger and Anne Catesby Jones as Class Representatives; and 4. directing that notice be sent to the Class, and granting such other relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate. The Plaintiffs bring their claims on behalf of the Class under the Racketeering Influenced and Corruption Organizations (RICO) Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=K61bR1KF The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. Mark T. Vazquez, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (708) 628 4949 Facsimile: (708) 628 4950 E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623 7292 Facsimile: (206) 623 0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Jane A. Becker Whitaker, Esq. P.O. Box 9023914 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902 Telephone: (787) 754 9191 Facsimile: (787) 764 3101 E-mail: jane@beckerwhitaker.com - and - J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Andrew Howie, Esq. HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON, P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223 4567 E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net PURDUE PHARMA: Coventry Joins Class Action Over Opioid Pandemic --------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Leininger, writing for Journal Inquirer, reports that the town of Coventry is joining a class-action lawsuit the city of Waterbury recently filed against Connecticut-based Purdue Pharma LP and other pharmaceutical companies responsible for making opioid medication that has led to an addiction pandemic across the country. At its meeting on Sept. 5, the Town Council voted unanimously to have the town join the lawsuit as a co-plaintiff. [GN] QUALITY CABLE: "Card" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JEREMY RYAN CARD, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUALITY CABLE INSTALLERS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv- 00524 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for conditional certification and notice to potential class members on behalf of: "all persons employed by Defendants as helpers and foremen at anytime during the past three years." On February 16, 2017, Jeremy Card filed this collective action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to recover unpaid wages that were wrongfully denied to him and other similarly situated helpers and foremen who worked for the Defendant, Quality Cable Installers ("QCI" or "Defendant") within the relevant time-period. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VBhL9orE The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq. Tracey D. Lewis, Esq. ROSENBERG & SPROVACH 3518 Travis Street, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 960 8300 Facsimile: (713) 621 6670 The Defendant is represented by: W. Jackson Wisdom Diana Perez Gomez MARTIN, DISIERE, JEFFERSON &WISDOM, L.L.P. 808 Travis, 20th Floor Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 632 1700 Facsimile: (713) 222 0101 E-mail: wisdom@mdhjwlaw.com gomez@mdjwlaw.com QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: "Racies" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled PHILLIP RACIES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00292-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Mr. Phillip Racies moves the Court on November 16, 2017, for an order certifying the following Classes: 1. Multi-State UCL Class: "all consumers who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased Prevagen in California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Washington until the date notice is disseminated"; or, alternatively, 2. California-Only UCL Class: "all California consumers who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased Prevagen until the date notice is disseminated; and 3. California-Only CLRA Class: "all California consumers who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased Prevagen until the date notice is disseminated". The Plaintiff seeks certification of his claims under the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 7200, et seq. ("UCL"), and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code section 1750, et seq. ("CLRA"). As set forth in the accompanying memorandum, the proposed Classes satisfy all requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, thereby warranting class certification. The Plaintiff also moves for an Order appointing the law firms of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C., and Siprut, PC as Class Counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lkxt6e8E The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. Elaine A. Ryan, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 600 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798-4593 E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com mmuecke@bffb.com eryan@bffb.com - and - Stewart M. Weltman, Esq. SIPRUT, PC 17 North State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236 0000 E-mail: sweltman@siprut.com RITA'S WATER: TCPA Suit Class Members to Get Bigger Scoop of $3MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a federal judge has ruled that because there are fewer valid claimants in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against Rita's Water Ice than originally anticipated, each will get a larger share of the $3 million settlement fund. The class action was filed in 2015 by Sherry Brown and Ericka Newby. The two claimed that Rita's sent them "Cool Alerts" text messages announcing when certain water ice flavors and other products were available at local stores. They alleged that the lists were generated using a database of telephone numbers that the owners did not provide to Rita's. They also claimed that they kept receiving messages after texting "STOP" in response to the texts' instructions to stop receiving future notifications. U.S. District Judge Timothy Savage of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania wrote in his opinion that there were fewer class members with valid claims than previously thought--10,164 to the anticipated 28,523--due to an error on the part of the settlement administrator. "The settlement administrator should have conducted the full review of the claim forms as soon as the claim filing deadline passed instead of waiting for the final approval order to be issued," Savage wrote. "However, because the eligible class members will receive a greater benefit, we shall grant the motion and supplement the findings of fact to reflect the correct number of valid claim forms submitted." Stephen F. Taylor of Lemberg Law, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in an email, "We are moving forward with the court-approved distribution plan to disperse the class settlement." John M. Doroghazi of Wiggin and Dana, who represents Rita's, did not respond to a request for comment. Earlier in the litigation the plaintiffs attorneys were awarded a sizable fee, though not as much as they had wanted. On March 16, Savage granted class counsel's request for $40,000 in expenses and $10,000 in incentive awards, but denied their request for $1 million in legal fees, instead awarding them $651,000. That reduced fee represents roughly 22 percent of the litigation's settlement fund. "The amount each class-member claimant will receive is not significant, but rather modest," Savage said in his March ruling, adding, "Counsel claim that they extracted the largest settlement possible for the class in light of Rita's ability to pay. Yet, rather than adjust the attorney fees to increase the amount available to the class, counsel propose a lesser recovery for the class members." [GN] RIVIANA FOODS: NY Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Riviana Foods Inc. on Sept. 13 disclosed that a federal court in New York dismissed baseless consumer fraud claims against the company, finding that the arguments put forward by the plaintiff were not those of a "reasonable consumer." The plaintiff in Stewart v. Riviana Foods Inc., sued Riviana on August 3, 2016, contending that she believed boxes of Riviana's Ronzoni(R) Smart Taste(R), Healthy Harvest(R), Garden Delight(R), SuperGreens(R), and Gluten Free(R) pasta would contain 16 ounces of pasta, even though the boxes clearly showed contents weighing 12 ounces. The plaintiff said she came to this belief because other, similarly-sized Ronzoni(R) pasta boxes contain 16 ounces of pasta, and say so. Judge Nelson Roman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the plaintiff's claims in an opinion issued on September 11, 2017. The Court agreed with Riviana that for the plaintiff to "expect to receive 16 ounces of healthy pasta solely because she has purchased different Ronzoni pasta products in similarly-sized boxes, is not reasonable." Bastiaan de Zeeuw, Riviana's President and CEO, was pleased with the outcome of the case and said, "Riviana will always vigorously defend itself against baseless lawsuits like this one." The case is Melissa Stewart v. Riviana Foods Inc., No. 16-CV-6157, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Riviana was represented in the case by Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, and Paul Rosenthal of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. Riviana Foods Inc. is North America's largest processor, marketer and distributor of branded and private label rice products and its second largest pasta manufacturer. The Riviana family of well- known brands includes Minute(R), Mahatma(R), Success(R), Carolina(R), Comet(R), Adolphus(R), Blue Ribbon(R), RiceSelect(R), Gourmet House(R), Ronzoni(R), Creamette(R), Skinner(R), San Giorgio(R), Prince(R), Catelli(R), American Beauty(R), No Yolks(R), Wacky Mac(R) and Light & Fluffy(R). Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Riviana is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ebro Foods, S.A., a leading Spanish food company. [GN] SCANA CORP: New Suit Seeks Refunds for Failed Nuclear Project ------------------------------------------------------------- Thad Moore, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that the two South Carolina utilities behind an abandoned nuclear power plant in Fairfield County face yet another lawsuit from their customers seeking refunds for the failed $9 billion project. In a recently filed complaint, SCANA Corp. and Santee Cooper are accused of "taking money for nothing." The plaintiffs -- customers from Richland and Florence counties -- want the power companies' assets to be sold off to repay ratepayers. The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, is one of at least five filed by customers since the utilities pulled the plug on their decade-long expansion of the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station north of Columbia. The companies spent $9 billion on the project before their lead contractor filed for bankruptcy protection, and they halted work in late July after determining it would cost at least $21 billion to finish. The latest lawsuit, filed in Richland County by the Columbia law firm Lewis Babcock LLP, takes a relatively unique approach, however, by alleging state-owned Santee Cooper violated its customers' constitutional rights by taking money without providing a service in return. The complaint also cites a secretive audit of the project, completed in 2016, that identified significant flaws in the project's designs and management, even as utility officials touted the promise of cheap and clean power. "Defendants knew for years that the project was doomed to fail," the lawsuit says, adding that the V.C. Summer owners "failed to resolve the problems and continued to use the project as a cash cow." Cayce-based SCANA, which owns South Carolina Electric & Gas, declined to comment on the case, citing the ongoing litigation. A spokeswoman for Moncks Corner-based Santee Cooper, which primarily sells power to electric cooperatives, said the company hadn't yet reviewed the allegations. [GN] SCHMIDT BAKING: "Milles" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Micheal Milles, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated v. Schmidt Baking Company, Inc., Case No. 2017-CA-0061318 (D.C. Super. Ct., September 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, equitable and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs under the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act. Schmidt Baking Company, Inc. is in the business of producing and delivering bread products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Leonard, Esq. Benjamin L. Davis III, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244-7005 E-mail: rleonard@nicholllaw.com bdavis@nicholllaw.com SERGEANT'S PET: "Bietsch" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled RYAN BIETSCH, MICHAEL PFORTMILLER, JUSTIN MANNER, and SELIM FREIHA individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SERGEANT'S PET CARE PRODUCTS, INC., a Michigan corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-05432 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an Order: 1. certifying the following classes: National Class: "all persons in the United States who purchased Pur Luv Grande Bones and/or Mini Bones Treats within the Class Period of June 19, 2010, through the present"; Consumer Fraud Multistate Class: "all persons residing in California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Washington who purchased Pur Luv Grande Bones and/or Mini Bones Treats within the Class Period of June 19, 2010, through the present"; 2. appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives; and 3. appointing the law firm of Siprut PC as class counsel. In the alternative to the Consumer Fraud Multistate Class, Plaintiffs ask that this Court certify the following state subclasses: Illinois Class: "all persons residing in the State of Illinois who purchased Pur Luv Grande Bones and/or Mini Bones Treats within the Class Period of June 19, 2010, through the present"; California Class: "all persons residing in the State of California who purchased the Pur Luv Grande Bones and/or Mini Bones Treats within the Class Period of June 19, 2010, through the present"; and Ohio Class: "all persons residing in the State of California who purchased the Pur Luv Grande Bones and/or Mini Bones Treats within the Class Period of June 19, 2010, through the present." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XbWE7qTs The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. Richard L. Miller II, Esq. Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq. Richard S. Wilson, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 North State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236 0000 Facsimile: (312) 878 1342 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com rmiller@siprut.com tmclawhorn@siprut.com rwilson@siprut.com SELA HEALTHCARE: Cal. App. Affirms Order Dismissing "Zaragoza" -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Two, issued an Opinion affirming the judgment of the District Court granting Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned ESTELLA ZARAGOZA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SELA HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. E065373 (Cal. App.). Plaintiff and appellant Estela Zaragoza appeals from an order granting the motion to compel arbitration brought by defendant and respondent Sela Healthcare, Inc., dba Villa Mesa Care Center, and dismissing Zaragoza's class action. Zaragoza worked for Villa Mesa. Zaragoza signed the same version of an arbitration agreement that had been adopted by Villa Mesa as part of a new employee handbook. Zaragoza filed a wage and hour class action. Villa Mesa responded by filing a motion to compel arbitration with supporting declarations and documents, including the signed agreement for binding arbitration. The Cal. App. holds there is substantial evidence that Zaragoza agreed to arbitrate her claims against Villa Mesa. There is no contract until there is mutual consent of the parties. Mutual consent necessary to the formation of a contract is determined under an objective standard applied to the outward manifestations or expressions of the parties, the reasonable meaning of their words and acts, and not their unexpressed intentions or understandings. Zaragoza's lack of facility with English does not negate the arbitration agreement. Ordinarily, one who accepts or signs an instrument, which on its face is a contract, is deemed to assent to all its terms, and cannot escape liability on the ground that he has not read it. If he cannot read, he should have it read or explained to him. In summary, a person cannot knowingly enter into a contract and then subsequently use unfamiliarity with the English language as a shield against enforcement of that contract. Sufficient evidence supports the trial court's ruling granting the motion to compel arbitration. Cal. App. affirms the judgment. A full-text copy of the Court Appeals' September 11, 2017 Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya79go2bfrom Leagle.com. Rastegar Law Group, Farzad Rastegar -- farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com -- and Thomas S. Campbell -- tom@rastegarlawgroup.com -- for Plaintiff and Appellant. Walraven & Westerfeld, Bryan A. Westerfeld -- bwesterfeld@walravenlaw.com -- and Nicole E. Wurscher -- new@walravenlaw.com -- for Defendant and Respondent. SHELL CHEMICAL: Sheila Rowell, et al. Seek to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled SHEILA ROWELL, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. SHELL CHEMICAL LP, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-02392- CJB-DEK (E.D. La.), Keith Adams, Elizabeth Bickham, Bruce Blaine, Erica Bolden, Walter Evans, Martha Huckaby, Varice James, Zina James, Ruthie Jones, Deborah Nunnery, Deanna Porter, Gloria Riley, Shelia Rowell, and Geraldine Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated ask the Court to certify class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PVP2EkC4 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott R. Bickford, Esq. Lawrence J. Centola, Esq. Jason Z. Landry, Esq. MARTZELL & BICKFORD 388 Lafayette Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581 9065 Facsimile: (504) 581 7635 - and - Stephen M. Huber, Esq. Brian Marcelle, Esq. HUBER, SLACK, THOMAS & MARCELLE, LLP 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1405 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 274 2500 Facsimile: (504) 910 0838 SIMPSONS STRONG-TIE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum, OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Tania De La Paz, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Simpsons Strong-Tie Company Inc., and Does 1 through I 00, inclusive, Case No. RG17874434 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Simpsons Strong-Tie Company Inc. manufactures and distributes engineered structural connectors and building solutions for homes and buildings worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 SNAP INC: Investors Seek to Unseal PowerPoint Presentation ---------------------------------------------------------- Gene Maddaus, writing for Variety, reports that lawyers representing investors in Snap Inc. filed a motion on Sept. 13 to unseal a PowerPoint presentation that alleges that the company woefully misstated its growth metrics. The attorneys are pursuing a class action securities fraud case against Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, and believe the presentation by fired employee Anthony Pompliano will assist in their case. Mr. Pompliano filed a federal whistleblower suit in May, alleging that he was fired because he refused to participate in the duping of investors and advertisers. Mr. Pompliano was on the job for a mere three weeks in 2015, but in that time he prepared a PowerPoint deck laying out what he believed were the key inaccuracies in the company's numbers. That presentation was filed as a sealed exhibit to the federal suit. In a motion to intervene in the suit, attorney Benjamin Heikali -- bheikali@faruqilaw.com -- argues that his clients have a First Amendment right to access court records. The presentation, he argues, "is a matter of significant public concern given the high profile of Snap's IPO." Snap has blasted Mr. Pompliano as a disgruntled former employee who was fired for "poor performance." The company's lawyers have also said his information is both inaccurate and badly out of date, and has sought to force him to resolve the case in arbitration. Mr. Heikali's firm, Faruqi & Faruqi, filed suit against Snap on July 10, alleging that the company used false and misleading growth data to defraud investors in its IPO. The presentation, Heikali argues, will "bolster the action's allegations about what the defendants knew about Snap's user metrics and when." The firm has filed many such class action cases, including recent ones against Tribune Media and Blue Apron. Mr. Pompliano initially filed a heavily redacted complaint in state court in January, which left out most of the details of his tenure at the company. Snap later filed an unredacted version of the complaint, saying it had "nothing to hide." [GN] SOUTHWEST HARVESTING: Court Grants Settlement Preliminary OK ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned JAVIER CAMACHO, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST HARVESTING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-05744-LHK (N. D. Cal.). Plaintiff Javier Camacho moved for an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement reached with defendant Southwest Harvesting, Inc. The Court has reviewed the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs' motion papers and briefs, and the declaration of counsel. Based on its review of these papers, the Court finds that the Settlement Agreement appears to be the result of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations conducted with the assistance of former Alameda County Superior Court Judge Bonnie Sabraw. The terms of the Settlement Agreement do not improperly grant preferential treatment to any individual or segment of the Settlement Class and fall within the range of possible approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court therefore grants preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement and all of the terms and conditions contained therein. The Court preliminarily certifies for settlement purposes the Settlement Class described in the Settlement, composed of all persons who worked for Defendant as seasonal agricultural workers who performed field work harvesting produce and worked more than six hours but less than eight hours in a workday, at any time during the period. The Court appoints Plaintiff Javier Camacho as representative for the Settlement Class. The Court appoints Gregory N. Karasik of Karasik Law Firm and Santos Gomez of Law Offices of Santos Gomez as counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court appoints Atticus Administration as the Settlement Administrator. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yabm462ofrom Leagle.com. Javier Camacho, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory N. Karasik -- greg@karasiklawfirm.com -- Karasik Law Firm. Javier Camacho, Plaintiff, represented by Santos Gomez -- santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com -- Law Offices of Santos Gomez. Southwest Harvesting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer Michelle Schermerhorn ---jschermerhorn@laborcouncelors.com -- The Saqui Law Group, Kevin Patrick Cleveland, The Saqui Law Group & Michael Christopher Saqui -- mcs@laborcouncelors.com -- The Saqui Law Group. SOUTHWICK INC: Faces "Lay" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Tu Lay, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. Southwick, Inc. d/b/a Toyota of 1611 Berkeley, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. RG17874304 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay straight time and overtime wages owed to Non Exempt Employees, as mandated under the California Labor Code. Southwick, Inc. owns and operates vehicle service centers, collision centers and tire centers in Alameda County, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arthur W. Lazear, Esq. Morgan M. Mack, Esq. LAZEAR MACK LLP 435-14TH Street, #1117 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 735-6316 Facsimile: (510) 255-2875 E-mail: arthur@lazearmack.com morgan@lazearmack.com SUBWAY: Appeals Court Rejects Footlong Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reports that a South Jersey law firm has come up short in a dispute over Subway's Footlong sandwiches. DeNittis Osefchen Prince P.C. of Evesham was expected to share in a $520,000 payment by the restaurant chain, a sum intended to settle a class-action lawsuit over the actual length of Subway's six- and 12-inch sandwiches. But a federal appeals court in Chicago has rejected the deal, saying it would have enriched attorneys while doing nothing for most Subway customers. In a sometimes-sharply worded decision, the three-judge panel described the settlement as "no better than a racket." "No class action settlement that yields zero benefits for the class should be approved, and a class action that seeks only worthless benefits for the class should be dismissed out of hand," it said. The ruling also rejected the claim that Subway customers were shortchanged by undersized Footlongs. It said Subway's "raw dough sticks weigh exactly the same, so the rare sandwich roll that fails to bake to a full 12 inches actually contains no less bread." Sandwich ingredients are standardized, the ruling added. "No class member, regardless of bread length, was cheated on the amount of ham or turkey, provolone or pepper jack," it said. Evesham lawyer Stephen DeNittis said the appeals court "unfortunately" did not consider information that "strongly supported" the plaintiffs' claims. He also said the ruling incorrectly suggested the settlement was "a windfall for the attorneys at the expense of the class." "Such was clearly not the case," Mr. DeNittis said on Sept. 13. "There were 10 law firms involved in the 3´-year-long action who devoted well over 2,000 hours in time in litigating the matter." The settlement also included $500 for each of 10 named plaintiffs, including two South Jersey men. In a statement, Subway said it was pleased the ruling recognized the company "did not misrepresent its product." A federal judge in Wisconsin approved the settlement in February 2016 after lawyers for Subway and its customers said the agreement offered "meaningful benefits" for consumers. As part of the agreement, Subway said its franchisees would use "a tool" to measure sandwich rolls. The firm said its quality- control inspectors would sample baked bread and would check bread ovens during store visits. Those measures, to be taken over a four-year period, represented a benefit to customers worth more than $5 million annually, according to Mr. DeNittis. But the settlement also acknowledged some rolls "will inevitably fall short due to the natural variability in the baking process." That concession made the proposed changes "utterly worthless," the appellate ruling said. "There's still the same small chance that Subway will sell a class member a sandwich that is slightly shorter than advertised," it noted. The appellate panel returned the case to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman in Wisconsin. The settlement was challenged on appeal by Theodore Frank, director of the Center for Class Action Fairness and a Subway customer. The center described the ruling as "a win for consumers." The 11-page decision recounted a highly publicized dispute that began with a hungry boy and soon spurred the appetites of attorneys across the United States. "In January 2013, an Australian teenager measured his Subway Footlong sandwich and discovered it was only 11 inches long," the Aug. 25 ruling begins. "He photographed the sandwich alongside a tape measure and posted the photo on his Facebook page." "It went viral. Class-action litigation soon followed." The Evesham firm's lawsuit -- filed in the names of John Farley of Evesham and Charles Noah Pendrak of Ocean City -- estimated annual damages of up to $27.2 million for Subway customers in New Jersey. It argued that amount should be tripled under New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act. Eventually, the South Jersey suit and eight others were consolidated before U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman in Wisconsin. Mr. DeNittis served as co-lead counsel for the class of Subway customers and the named plaintiffs. The appellate panel also noted its concern over "the tendency of class settlements to yield benefits for stakeholders other than the class." It said lawyers for customers support settlements "to get fees," while defendants do so "to evade liability." "That is why objectors play an essential role in judicial review of proposed settlements of class actions and why judges must be both vigilant and realistic in that review," the ruling said. [GN] TABLETOPS UNLIMITED: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Angela Huizar, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Tabletops Unlimited, Inc., Prime Staff Inc., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC675128 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Tabletops Unlimited, Inc. designs and manufactures tabletop and food preparation products. Prime Staff Inc. owns and operates a staffing agency in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553-3600 Facsimile: (310) 553-3603 - and - Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C. 287 S. Robertson Blvd., Suite 303 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 975-1493 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: mehrdad@tomorrowlaw.com TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA: Motion for Class Certification Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled LEA FAMILY PARTNERSHIP Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA, and LEN VALENTI, in his official capacity as "Housing Compliance Officer" and individually, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-03463-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification of: "all owners of residential dwellings located within the City of Temple Terrace: (i) whose dwelling was subject to the City's Rental Housing Ordinance Program; (ii) who submitted an initial application for the City's Rental Housing Ordinance Program at any time during the Class Period for such dwelling; (iii) who paid an initial fee to the City of Temple Terrace with their Rental Housing Ordinance Program application; and, (iv) whose dwelling was unoccupied at the time of the initial inspection performed by the City"; 2. directing the parties to conduct discovery on the issue of whether the City's records, including the two computer software programs used for enforcement of the Program, record whether a dwelling is unoccupied during initial inspection, in 90 days from the date of this Order; and 3. directing Plaintiff to refile its Motion for Class Certification if Plaintiff can present further evidence on the issues of ascertainability and numerosity upon expiration of the 90 days. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GbbVxJV7 TENNESSEE: "Sprague" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & 3 Subclasses --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled FRED ROBINSON; ASHLEY SPRAGUE; and JOHNNY GIBBS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DAVID W. PURKEY, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, in his official capacity, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01263 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs move to certify a Statewide Class and three Subclasses: The Statewide Class: "all persons whose Tennessee driver's licenses have been or will be suspended under Tenn. Code Ann. section 55-50- 502(a)(1)(H) or (I) for nonpayment of Traffic Debt and who cannot now and could not at the time of suspension afford to pay such debt"; The Wilson County Subclass: "all members of the Statewide Class whose driver's licenses have been or will be suspended at the instance of Wilson County and/or its Clerks"; The Rutherford County Subclass: "all members of the Statewide Class whose driver's licenses have been or will be suspended at the instance of Rutherford County and/or its Clerks"; and The Multi-Barrier Subclass: "all members of the Statewide Class who, as of the date of judgment in this action, also had outstanding driver's license revocations under Tenn. Code Ann. section 40-24-105(b) for nonpayment of fines, fees, costs and restitution arising from criminal proceedings ("Court Debt"). All Named Plaintiffs seek to represent the Statewide Class. Plaintiff Robinson seeks to represent the Wilson County Subclass. Plaintiff Gibbs seeks to represent the Rutherford County Subclass and the Multi-Barrier Subclass. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Gwd4rfmw The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew G. White, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC First Tennessee Bank Building 165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 577 8182 E-mail: mwhite@bakerdonelson.com - and - Premal Dharia, Esq. Jonas Wang, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 910 17th Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 670 4809 E-mail: premal@civilrightscorps.org jonas@civilrightscorps.org - and - Claudia Wilner, Esq. Edward P. Krugman, Esq. Theresa Lau, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 633 6967 E-mail: wilner@nclej.org krugman@nclej.org lau@nclej.org - and - Josh Spickler, Esq. JUST CITY 902 South Cooper Street Memphis, TN 38104 Telephone: (901) 206 2226 E-mail: josh@justcity.org The Defendants are represented by: Mike Jennings, Esq. Wilson County Attorney 326 North Cumberland Street Lebanon, TN 37087 - and - James C. Cope, Esq. Rutherford County Attorney 16 Public Square North Murfreesboro, TN 37130 - and - Andy Wright, Esq. Lebanon City Attorney 200 N. Castle Heights Avenue Lebanon, TN 37087 - and - Gino Marchetti, Esq. Mount Juliet City Attorney 2908 Poston Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 TITLE SOURCE: "Swamy" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled SOM SWAMY, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TITLE SOURCE, INCORPORATED, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01175-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, will move the Court on October 26, 2017, for an order: 1. conditional certifying a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for: "all Staff Appraisers that worked for Defendant at any time from three years prior to the date the Court authorizes notice to the present"; 2. compelling Defendant Title Source, Inc. to produce the names, dates of employment, last known addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, and email addresses for each of the Class Members; 3. authorizing the mailing of a Notice of the pendency of this action to the Class Members with a Consent Form for them to join this case; and 4. allowing 60 days from the date of mailing of the Notice/Consent Form for the Class Members to join this case. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5iiPKDrG The Plaintiff is represented by: Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq. CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD. 10265 Beardon Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone: (408) 216 0599 Facsimile: (312) 577 0720 E-mail: lpeeters@caffarelli.com - and - Galvin Kennedy, Esq. Don Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523 0001 Facsimile: (713) 523 1116 E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com dfoty@kennedyhodges.com TWIN RIVERS: Combined Bid for Class Action Certification Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CHRISTOPHER MINOR, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. TWIN RIVERS CONSTRUCTION INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv- 01002-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order denying as moot and without prejudice Plaintiff's combined motion for conditional collective action certification and class action certification. The Court said, "In light of the grant of Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement Agreement Plaintiff's Combined Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Class Action Certification is moot and denied without prejudice to refiling in the event settlement is not accomplished." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uehl2XC3 UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Stricken Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Jose Luis Ocampo, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv- 09401 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer entered an order striking Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 19, 2017, Plaintiff's motion for class certification is stricken without prejudice pending the court's upcoming ruling on Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7e39Gnu6 UNITED STATES: "Kirwa" Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MAHLON KIRWA, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01793-ESH (D.D.C.), Mahlon Kirwa, Santhosh Meenhallimath, and Ashok Viswanathan move the Court for an order: 1. certifying this case as a class action, with the class consisting of all persons who: "(i) have enlisted in the U.S. military through the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest ("MAVNI") program; (ii) have served in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve ("Selected Reserve"); and (iii) have not received a completed Form N-426 from the military"; and 2. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel to represent the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HkAn3HxD The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph J. LoBue, Esq. Douglas W. Baruch, Esq. Jennifer M. Wollenberg, Esq. Neaha P. Raol, Esq. Shaun A. Gates, Esq. Katherine L. St. Romain, Esq. Webster R. M. Beary, Esq. FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP 801 17th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 639 7000 Facsimile: (202) 639 7003 E-mail: joseph.lobue@friedfrank.com douglas.baruch@friedfrank.com jennifer.wollenberg@friedfrank.com UNITED STATES: Army Corps of Engineers Sued Over Water Releases --------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Sims and David Gaffen, writing for Reuters, report that owners of homes flooded during Hurricane Harvey are claiming billions of dollars in damages by federal and state water releases from storm-swollen reservoirs, using a legal tack pursued without success in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. Several lawsuits filed in federal and state courts in Texas claim properties were taken for public use without compensation. The lawsuits name the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a state agency responsible for water releases. The potential damages could run as high as $3 billion, according to attorneys involved. "No one expects your government is going to deliberately do something that is going to flood your home," said Rhonda Pearce, 56. Her west Houston home was damaged by flooding from reservoir dam releases and she is considering legal action, she said. "Homes were literally being swept away," said Derek Potts, a Houston-based lawyer representing plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in Harris County court against the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) in a Texas court. His lawsuits are seeking class action status and could involve thousands of homes and businesses. Water released from a lake into the San Jacinto River was lawful and area flooding "was neither caused by or made worse" by those releases, the SJRA said in a statement. Similar claims from an earlier storm were dismissed in court, it said. The Army Corps of Engineers referred questions to the U.S. Department of Justice, which declined to comment. Mr. Potts said there are more than 1,000 homes valued at between $750,000 and $1 million, that could be covered by the lawsuit against the SJRA, putting potential damages in that case in the billions of dollars. Similar cases last decade that argued the government improperly took property when levees failed in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 were unsuccessful, said Robert R. M. Verchick, an environmental law professor at Loyola College of Law in New Orleans. "The Katrina plaintiffs tried to the do the same thing - and they lost," Mr. Verchick said. "In some ways this is going to follow the same path." Christopher Johns, an attorney who has filed two lawsuits in U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., said his firm has been contacted by hundreds of other homeowners. A 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving flooding have opened the door to winning such claims, he said. Megan Strickland, a plaintiff in one of the federal lawsuits, said while it is difficult to immediately quantify the damage to her home, many of her neighbors are in a similar situation. "We don't know if our neighborhood will be coming back again," Ms. Strickland said. [GN] US DEFENSE DEPARTMENT: Soldiers Sue over Promised Citizenship ------------------------------------------------------------- Britain Eaken, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that three non-citizens serving in the U.S. Army filed a federal complaint on September 1, accusing the Department of Defense of unlawfully refusing to certify their eligibility for naturalization after promising them a fast-track to citizenship. Mahlon Kirwa, Santhosh Meenhallimath and Ashok Viswanathan filed the class action in Washington, against the Defense Department and Secretary of Defense James Mattis. "As non-citizen soldiers serving honorably during wartime, plaintiffs have an absolute statutory right to apply to become naturalized U.S. citizens, but defendants are refusing to certify their naturalization application eligibility as required by law, leaving these soldiers to languish in immigration limbo, notwithstanding their ongoing military service to this nation," the 32-page complaint states. The three men, who serve in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve, were recruited into the Army under the 2008 Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest program (MANVI), which promises non-U.S. citizens with special language or medical skills deemed vital to U.S. national interests an expedited path to citizenship if they serve honorably during wartime. Federal law allows Kirwa, Meenhallimath and Viswanathan to apply for naturalization, but in order to do that they need the Pentagon to complete certification form N-426. According to the lawsuit, the citizenship opportunity provided a powerful incentive for their enlistment, the terms of which require them to serve for eight years. But the three soldiers say the Defense Department has implemented a new policy of refusing to issue that form on the basis that the MANVI soldiers have not served in active-duty capacity yet, even though the law does not require that. "Defendants' policy of withholding issuance of N-426s has no lawful basis and contravenes their duty to act," the lawsuit says. "And defendants have implemented this policy in blatant disregard for the immense suffering and mounting harm that their actions have caused to soldiers under their command." The new policy "stands in stark contrast" to the Pentagon's previous policy, according to the complaint. The Defense Department has processed thousands of forms for MANVI soldiers in the past, after which they are sent to the Department of Homeland Security for regular processing. But now the Defense Department is directing relevant commands to stop issuing the N-426 until the soldiers have seen active duty. Calling the Pentagon's conduct "a poorly-thought-out and thinly- veiled effort" to deny the soldiers citizenship, the complaint suggests that the department's views about the program have shifted over time. In a separate but related case filed in May, the Pentagon told a judge it is not certifying any MANVI soldiers while it conducts a review of the program in response to concerns that Army officials had previously jumped the gun on N-426 certifications. According to proceedings in that case, the Pentagon and the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services are at odds over interpretation of the law. According to Friday's complaint, Customs and Immigration Services disagrees with the Defense Department's new policy of requiring active-duty service before it will certify the eligibility of MANVI soldiers for citizenship. The three soldiers, who enlisted in 2015 and 2016, say they are currently stuck in limbo without voting rights, work authorization or the ability to travel in and out of the United States. They are also without protection from deportation: According to the Department of Homeland Security, MANVI soldiers are only lawfully present in the United States "at the discretion of the agency." Deportation could pose high risks for some of them. "These individuals would be subject to deportation to countries of origin, where, for some, they could face detention, interrogation, prosecution, and/or imprisonment because of their decision to enlist in the U.S. Army and swear their allegiance to the United States and the Constitution," the complaint states. The Defense Department declined to comment on the pending litigation. When reached for comment, attorneys for Kirwa, Meenhallimath and Viswanathan also declined to comment. The soldiers seek class certification and declaratory, injunctive and mandamus relief. The case is captioned, MAHLON KIRWA 400 Magnolia St. Orangeburg, SC 29115, SANTHOSH MEENHALLIMATH 8080 Eden Rd., Apt. 347 Eden Prairie, MN 55344, ASHOK VISW ANATHAN 14025 Chestnut Dr., Apt. FEden Prairie, MN 55347, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, PLAINTIFFS, V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 1000 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301, JAMES MATTIS, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense of the United States Department of Defense 1000 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301, DEFENDANTS. Case 1:17-cv-01793 (D. D.C., September 1, 2017). Counsel for Plaintiff: Joseph J. LoBue, Esq. Douglas W. Baruch, Esq. Jennifer M. Wollenberg, Esq. Neaha P. Raol, Esq. Webster R. M. Beary, Esq. Shaun A. Gates, Esq. Katherine L. St. Romain, Esq. Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP 801 17th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 639-7000 Facsimile: (202) 639-7003 Email: joseph.lobue@friedfrank.com Email: douglas.baruch@friedfrank.com Email: jennifer.wollenberg@friedfrank.com VACAVILLE, CA: Must Defend Suit over Contaminated Water ------------------------------------------------------- Nick Cahill, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Sacramento, Calif., on September 1, advanced a lawsuit against a Northern California city accused of knowingly delivering drinking water contaminated with a carcinogen highlighted in the film "Erin Brockovich." U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller denied the city of Vacaville's motion to dismiss an action filed in March by the environmental group California River Watch. The environmentalists want the city to be fined for each day it's violated the federal Resource Conversation and Recovery Act by delivering chromium 6 through its water system to residential taps. The lawsuit comes on the heels of recent tests revealing that high levels of chromium 6, which occurs naturally in rocks and soil and is used to make stainless steel and plastics, were found in five of the city's 11 groundwater wells. River Watch claims the contaminated water sold to Vacaville's 92,000 residents poses "an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health." The environmental group is represented by Jack Silver of Sebastopol. Vacaville, located 55 miles northeast of San Francisco, argued the lawsuit should be tossed because the plaintiff failed to show a violation of the recovery act. It said that plaintiff's claims are already regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Mueller, appointed by President Barack Obama in 2010 and the first female judge to serve in California's Eastern District, called the city's motion "unavailing" and dismissed it in seven pages. She noted several other courts have recognized that chromium 6 waste is regulated by the recovery act. "Defendant has not challenged plaintiff's allegation of harm so the court declines to address this issue," Mueller said. She added that River Watch properly stated its recovery act claim and gave the city 14 days to answer the order. The city declined to comment on Mueller's order. Vacaville public information officer Mark Mazzaferro told Courthouse News in March that the city is dedicating millions toward improving its wells and lowering the levels of the carcinogen. He reiterated that the city is on track to meeting new state drinking-water guidelines for chromium 6 that go into effect in 2020. Residents of the Los Angeles suburb of Paramount sued seven metal- finishing factories in March, claiming they are polluting the city with chromium 6. The plaintiffs in the class action hired the environmental law firm Girardi Keese, which defended the chromium contamination case made famous by "Erin Brockovich." The case is captioned, CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF VACAVILLE, Defendant. Case 2:17-cv-00524-KJM-KJN(C.D. Cal., September 1, 2017). VECTOR MARKETING: "Donald" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Justin Donald, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vector Marketing Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 17SL-CC0274, was removed on Sep. 7, 2017 from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-02372-CDP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Catherine D. Perry. Vector Marketing is a domestic sales arm of Cutco Corporation, an Olean, New York based cutlery manufacturer and multi-level marketing organization. Vector Marketing Corporation is the company's sales division.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: S. Todd Hamby, Esq. CARMODY MACDONALD P.C. 120 South Central Ave., Suite 1800 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 854 8600 Facsimile: (314) 854 8660 E-mail: sth@carmodymacdonald.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew James Weissler, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 345 6450 Facsimile: (314) 480 1505 E-mail: aj.weissler@huschblackwell.com VETERANS & MEDICAID: "Hanshaw" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- ALANA HANSHAW, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. VETERANS & MEDICAID PLANNING GROUP, PLLC, a Florida professional limited company, and ERIC MILLHORN, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00410-CEM-PRL (M.D. Fla., Sep. 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA because Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were regularly required to work in excess of 40 hours a workweek but were not paid overtime compensation as required by FLSA. Veterans & Medicaid is a geriatric care management firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. Jason M. Melton, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC One Progressive Plaza 200 Central Avenue No. 400 St. Petersburg, FL Telephone: (727) 822 1111 Facsimile: (727) 898 2001 E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com lechneri@theFLlawfirm.com sonia@theFLlawfirm.com VOCUS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Guidance Downgrade ------------------------------------------------------------- Corinne Reichert, writing for ZDNet, reports that Vocus is facing a potential class action from its shareholders over downgrading its financial guidance in May, law firm Slater and Gordon and shareholder claim management and funding-service provider Investor Claim Partner (ICP) have announced. According to Slater and Gordon, the proposed class action centres around two allegations: That "Vocus engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct because it had no reasonable grounds for the original FY17 guidance issued in November 2016"; and that the telco "breached its obligations of continuous disclosure by failing to disclose that it would not achieve the FY17 guidance". The law firm said the proposed claim will be brought on behalf of those who purchased Vocus shares between November 29, 2016, and May 2, 2017 -- which it said could be "hundreds, if not thousands, of people". Between these two dates, the claim alleges that the company's shares traded significantly higher than their actual value due to Vocus' alleged misleading and deceptive conduct. Mathew Chuk, Slater and Gordon principal lawyer, said Vocus' original guidance had relied on assumptions made about growing the business through its AU$1.2 billion acquisition of Amcom in June 2015, its merger with M2 in February 2016 to form the third- largest telecommunications provider in New Zealand and the fourth- largest in Australia worth more than AU$3 billion, and its AU$861 million acquisition Nextgen Networks in July 2016. However, Mr. Chuk said Vocus' presumptions that it would consequently gain efficiencies by combining these businesses "was done without proper visibility of profitability". "Our investigations to date suggest Vocus had unreasonable expectations about the costs involved in integrating its newly acquired platforms and technology systems," Mr. Chuk said. "We have also identified an accounting issue relating to recognition of ongoing costs associated with the execution of long term, multimillion-dollar service contracts." ICP COO Simon Weeks alleged that Vocus had been aware of these technology and platform integration and accounting and cost issues while continuing to reiterate its original guidance. "There appears to be evidence that Vocus was aware of most of these issues when the FY17 guidance was originally issued in November, thus misleading the market," Mr. Weeks said. "Based on initial interest, Vocus shareholders are perturbed by this, as it is yet another example of a listed company not following the listing rules that exist to protect shareholders. "Adverse, price-sensitive information needs to be disclosed immediately, otherwise shareholders overpay." In a statement to media, Vocus said it has always complied with its reporting obligations. "We understand that Slater and Gordon have issued a release indicating they are seeking interest in a possible class action," Vocus said. "At all times, Vocus has complied with its continuous disclosure obligations and will continue to do so." Vocus' revised guidance saw forecast revenue reduced by AU$100 million, underlying earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortisation (EBITDA) reduced by between AU$65 million and AU$75 million, and net profit reduced by between AU$45 million and AU$50 million. CEO Geoff Horth had said underlying EBITDA was then expected to be between AU$365 million and AU$375 million, net profit between AU$160 million and AU$165 million, and revenue of AU$1.8 billion. The company had attributed AU$12 million of its EBITDA reduction to higher expenses than expected, particularly on technology; AU$33 million to an accounting review of "the negotiated contract terms on a number of large projects"; AU$10 million to the impact of lower-than-expected billings and an increased headcount across its Enterprise and Wholesale division; AU$5 million to low earnings in its mass market energy business due to "volatility created by extreme weather events in 3QFY17"; and AU$10 million to other trading variances. The drop in expected net profit was due to pre-tax expenses of AU$113 million, including AU$26.4 million from the amortisation of acquired software; AU$21.4 million from acquisition and integration costs; AU$61 million from the non-cash amortisation of acquired customer intangibles; and AU$5.6 million from the non- cash book loss on the divestment of the Connect 8 joint venture and the Cisco HCS voice platform. Revenue, meanwhile, was said to be lower than previously forecast thanks to a AU$40 million take-back as a result of the accounting review, as it was found that revenue from the projects involved would be earned in future periods; AU$12 million from lower billings across its Enterprise and Wholesale division; and AU$20 million from the divestment of the Aggregato Australia business and the Cisco HCS voice platform. Vocus' net debt was updated to an expectation of between AU$1 billion and AU$1.1 billion, with CFO Mark Wratten expressing confidence that Vocus would be able to hit its revised guidance. As a result of its downgraded guidance, the company in June received a takeover proposal from Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co (KKR) to acquire 100 percent of its shares at a price of AU$3.50 per share via a scheme of arrangement, with Vocus then allowing KKR to conduct due diligence to explore whether a binding transaction could be agreed upon. KKR had said its preliminary, indicative, and non-binding proposal would be subject to whether Vocus' net debt did not exceed AU$1.1 billion as of June 30; EBITDA was between AU$365 million to AU$375 million for FY16-17, and not driven by any abnormal or one-off items; and Vocus' existing asset base was maintained. Shortly afterwards, Affinity Equity Partners submitted a takeover proposal in July to acquire 100 percent of Vocus' shares at a price of AU$3.50 per share via a scheme of arrangement to be paid in cash. Two days before Vocus was due to announce its FY17 full-year financial results, however, both takeover proposals were terminated. "Throughout the due diligence process, the bidders indicated support for management's strategic plans and transformation program," Vocus said in August. "However, the bidders have now advised that they are unable to support a transaction on terms acceptable to the board. Accordingly, all discussions have now ceased." Vocus' full-year results announced late August saw a turnaround in its FY16 net profit of AU$64.1 million to a net loss of AU$1.5 billion for FY17 due to "higher than forecast net finance costs and a higher effective tax rate", along with what Mr. Horth called "a more competitive business environment" in both Australia and New Zealand. Statutory EBITDA was AU$335.5 million, up 72.7 percent. Underlying net profit was AU$152.3 million, while underlying EBITDA, not including significant items during the year, was AU$366.4 million, up 70 percent. Revenue grew by 119 percent year on year to AU$1.8 billion, and the company's net debt increased by 35 percent to AU$1.03 billion and is expected to climb even higher, to up to AU$1.06 billion for FY18. "The underlying result reflects another strong year of growth for Vocus; however, it was not at the level we anticipated at the beginning of the financial year and we are working through a number of projects to address this," Mr. Horth said last month. "The FY17 year and in particular 2HFY17, has been a period of transition as the business has focused on the completion and integration of Nextgen, and the implementation of business plans that will maximise returns and leverage the infrastructure platform and operational scale that has been created through recent acquisitions." [GN] WASHINGTON: Judge Tosses Nursing Home Residents' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Alison Chandler, writing for The Washington Post, reports that a U.S. district judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit that alleged that the District failed to comply with a federal mandate to move eligible and interested Medicaid recipients out of nursing homes and into the community. U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle ruled that a single injunction could not remedy the problems experienced by the elderly and disabled nursing home residents because barriers to moving them back into the community extended beyond the system's shortfalls with transition services. Principle among them: a lack of affordable and accessible housing in the District. Other barriers included few wheelchair- accessible units, and, for some residents, poor credit history or criminal records that made it harder to secure housing. "The District has little to be proud of regarding its historic inability to comply with Olmstead's integration mandate," said Huvelle in her 91-page ruling, referring to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that public entities must provide community-based services to people with disabilities whenever possible, and that keeping them institutionalized is a form of discrimination. "However, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the existence of a concrete, systemic failure that entitles them to class-wide relief," she said. An advocate for the plaintiffs said they were still trying to understand the judge's ruling on Sept. 13. "We are incredibly disappointed," said Kelly Bagby, an attorney with AARP Foundation who represents the plaintiffs. She said she fundamentally disagreed with the ruling and that one solution -- a better system of transition services to help the disabled nursing home residents -- would have remedied the plaintiffs' common complaint. Claudia Schlosberg, state Medicaid director for the District, said in a statement on Sept. 13 that the District's Medicaid program is dedicated to providing qualified residents with disabilities "access to services and supports in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs." "We know, however, that some individuals who wish to transition back to the community are still living in nursing homes," the statement read. "As the Court recognized, there are individualized barriers that prevent these individuals from being able to transition out of the nursing home and into the community. Housing is one of the most common barriers. We are fully committed to the principles of the Olmstead decision and will continue our efforts to increase access to long term care services and supports in the community." The suit was filed in 2010 by University Legal Services, AARP Foundation Litigation and the private law firm of Arent Fox. In 2013, the plaintiffs were certified as a class, a designation that was appealed by the District. The ruling came exactly one year after the case went to trial. The plaintiffs were nursing home residents in the District who receive Medicaid and are entitled to in-home care. Federally and state-funded waivers for Medicaid recipients who are elderly or have physical disabilities allow people to receive up to 16 hours a day of in-home services and case management if they need help with at least two activities of daily living such as bathing, eating or dressing. If they need 24-hour care, they can get an additional eight hours through the D.C. Medicaid Personal Care Assistance program. Surveys consistently show that older people prefer to stay in their homes for as long as they can. Serving people at home is also significantly more cost-effective, advocates say. The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that between 500 and 2,900 people with disabilities in the District are "unnecessarily institutionalized in nursing facilities, segregated and isolated from their families and friends" and that "these individuals desperately want to return to their communities." Legal records show just a small number of nursing home patients were moved successfully back into the community each year, including only a fraction of those who were accepted into a federal program that helps Medicaid recipients move out of nursing homes and receive services in the community. But the District alleged and, the judge agreed, that the lack of available, affordable and accessible housing was a major barrier to serving these residents in the community. More than 80 percent of nursing facility residents who wanted to move to the community needed publicly funded or subsidized housing, court records say. Waiting lists are exceedingly long, and the availability of wheelchair accessible units is even more limited. Court documents noted that people with private housing were able to transition much more quickly than those who needed to secure subsidized housing. Plaintiffs argued in court that the city should be responsible for helping residents to secure housing. In response to the judge's ruling on Sept. 13, Ms. Bagby noted that unnecessarily lengthy nursing home stays, due to poor transition services, were part of the problem because they exacerbated plaintiffs' housing problems. "These are people who are on Medicaid and have been institutionalized. Of course they don't have private housing." [GN] WATCH TOWER: Hit With Sexual Abuse Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Ms. Lisa Blais, as Petitioner, has filed on September 15 an application to Institute a Class Action (court docket: 500-06- 000886-172) against three corporations of the Jehovah's Witnesses: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada, The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. She filed these proceedings on behalf of the following classes: "All persons who are or were a Jehovah's Witness who allege having been sexually abused in Quebec by a Jehovah's Witness Elder." and "All persons who are or were a Jehovah's Witness who allege having been sexually abused as a child in Quebec, by a Jehovah's Witness." The Petitioner Ms. Blais is represented by the law firm Woods LLP in Montreal. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Court Narrows Claims in "Flower" UCL Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court, Northern District of California, issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned VANA FOWLER, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02092-HSG (N.D. Cal.). Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Vana Fowler brings the putative class action alleging violations under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Plaintiff alleges that Wells Fargo unlawfully and unfairly collected post-payment interest on mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by failing to provide proper notice to borrowers. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. This facial plausibility standard requires the plaintiff to allege facts that amo Plaintiff's sole claim is a violation of California's UCL. The UCL prohibits any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising. Unlawful Business Practice Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's collection of post-payment interest was both unlawful and unfair as it violated Section 203.558 and the terms of borrowers' promissory notes. Defendant challenges both the statutory and contractual basis for Plaintiff's claim and the Court addresses each in turn. Private Right of Action under 24 C.F.R. Section 203.558 Defendant first argues that HUD regulation 24 C.F.R. Section 203.558 cannot serve as the predicate for a UCL claim because the regulation does not create a private right of action for borrowers. Defendant points to the enforcement scheme overseen by HUD's Mortgagee Review Board as evidence that private enforcement is explicitly foreclosed. The Board is empowered to initiate the issuance of a letter of reprimand, the probation, suspension, or withdrawal of any mortgagee found to be engaging in activities in violation of [FHA] requirements. And Section 203.558 further provides that if the mortgagee fails to meet the full disclosure requirements the mortgagee may be subject to forfeiture and to such other actions as are provided. Defendant's other authorities are similarly unpersuasive, the Court said. The Court declined to deviate from the California Supreme Court's explanation that a UCL claim may stand, whether or not the underlying statute provides a private right of action. Because Sec 203.558 does not explicitly bar private enforcement, the Court concludes that a UCL claim premised on a violation of this regulation may proceed. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's UCL claim on that basis. Breach of Contract Defendant next argues that to the extent Plaintiff's UCL claim is premised on a breach of contract theory. This also fails because the regulations are not incorporated by reference into the promissory note and, even if they were, they cannot form the basis of an affirmative breach of contract claim under California law, the Court held. Unjust Enrichment Defendant next argues that Plaintiff's UCL theory based on unjust enrichment fails because California does not recognize an independent cause of action for unjust enrichment. The Court agreed. In California, unjust enrichment is synonymous with restitution. Restitution, however, is a remedy and not a standalone cause of action. The Ninth Circuit has nevertheless held that when a plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment, a court may construe the cause of action as a quasi-contract claim seeking restitution. The goal of a quasi-contract cause of action is to prevent unjust enrichment in the absence of a true contract or where the contract was obtained by fraud. Here, however, because this action involves an actual, express agreement, relief under a quasi-contract is unnecessary, and also was not properly pled in the complaint. The Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss on that basis without leave to amend. The Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's UCL claim to the extent that it is premised on an unjust enrichment theory, but otherwise denied the motion in its entirety. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 11, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya34ly9vfrom Leagle.com. Vana Fowler, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Lewis Hoipkemier, Epps, Holloway, DeLoach and Hoipkemier, LLC, pro hac vice, 1100 Peachtree Street NE, Ste. 800, Atlanta, GA 30303 Vana Fowler, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Epps -- ehdh@ehdhlaw.com -- EHDH, LLC, pro hac vice, Michael Francis Ram- MRam@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP & Susan S. Brown, SBrown@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by David S. Reidy - - dreidy@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, K. Issac deVyver -- kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Karla Lynn Johnson -- kjohnson@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP & Sara F. Holladay-Tobias -- stobias@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice. WELLS FARGO: Enters Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------- WHO-TV reports that Banking giant Wells Fargo is getting ready to pay out millions of dollars over fake accounts its employees created on behalf of real customers. The company said it uncovered twice as many unauthorized accounts as originally thought--three and a half million--without permission from the people whose names were on them. Wells Fargo has entered a class action settlement in which it will pay out $142 million to those customers. The company has set up a website with information about the settlement. [GN] WISCONSIN: Suit v. Jon Listcher Wins Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled J.J. et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Listcher, Jon, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00047-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. James D. Peterson entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification. According to the Civil Minutes, a joint report on the status of compliance of the preliminary injunction is due within 21 days. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uIyZsicn The Plaintiffs are represented by Laurence Dupuis, Esq., at American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin. The Defendants are represented by Samuel Hall, Esq. XENITH BANKSHARES: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Union Merger Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Xenith Bankshares Inc., Patrick E. Corbin, T. Gaylon Layfield III, Thomas G. Snead Jr., Palmer P. Garson, Robert J. Merrick, Scott A. Reed, W. Lewis Witt, William A. Paulette, Henry P. Custis Jr., James F. Burr, Edward Grebow, Robert B. Goldstein, and Union Bankshares Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-00612-JAG (E.D. Va., September 7, 2017), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Xenith Bankshares Inc., to enjoin the proposed agreement and plan of merger of Xenith with Union Bankshares Corporation for $687.2 million on an aggregate basis. According to the case, Xenith filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that Xenith stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the Statement omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Xenith's financial projections, Union's financial projections, and the financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. ("Sandler O'Neill"), and Union's financial advisor, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. ("KBW"), (ii) potential conflicts of interest of KBW and Sandler O'Neill; and (iii) potential conflicts of interest of the Company's executive officers. Xenith Bankshares Inc. is a commercial bank specifically targeting the banking needs of middle market and small businesses, local real estate developers and investors, and retail banking clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Facsimile: (202) 333-2121 E-mail: etripodi@zlk.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com XEROX: Hit With Class Action Over Excessive Leasing Fees -------------------------------------------------------- According to a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Rochester, NY, Eco Farm Sales, a former customer of Xerox, is seeking monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief from defendant Xerox arising from alleged assessment of excessive fees for printing services, equipment and supplies. The case also challenges Xerox's alleged practice of charging customers unwarranted fees to end lease agreements. Plaintiff, Eco Farms Sales, is a California-based corporation that primarily grows, packs and markets avocados. The requested class includes all Xerox customers in the U.S. that paid a fee that was not authorized in their lease agreements since 2011 and all Xerox customers that paid a termination fee penalty in violation of their lease agreements since 2011. The suit makes claims against Xerox for breach of contract, unlawful penalties for termination, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. The classes are preliminarily defined as follows: -- All Xerox customers in the U.S. that paid a fee that was not authorized in their lease agreement in the six-year period prior to the filing of the suit -- All Xerox customers in the U.S. that paid a termination fee or penalty in violation of their lease agreement or the applicable New York law in the six-year period prior to the filing of the suit. The plaintiff is making the following allegations: -- Xerox induces customers to enter loan term contracts by assuring pricing and functionality that go undelivered. -- Xerox raises fees without justification -- Xerox charges unreasonable fees to terminate agreements. -- Xerox's practices have harmed plaintiff and the classes. According to the filing, the plaintiff's claims for relief are based on three counts encompassing: Breach of contract including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unlawful penalties for termination on behalf of the termination class and, "unjust enrichment" on behalf of the overcharge and termination classes. [GN] ZILLOW GROUP: Oct. 23 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Zillow Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:Z) who purchased shares between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017. The action, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws. In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) Zillow's co- marketing program did not comply with the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; and (2) as a result, Zillow's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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-sb/zillow-group-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. Joseph Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 E-mail: www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] * Attorney Says Class Action Lawsuits Over 'Soda Pop Tax' Only -------------------------------------------------------------- Dee Thompson, writing for Cook County Record, reports the controversial new "soda pop tax" that went into effect last month has already sparked class-action lawsuits against retailers and restaurants for allegedly miscalculating the tax, but David Almeida, an attorney at Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, believes these suits likely are aimed only at generating quick paydays for plaintiffs' lawyers. "The threat posed by these lawsuits is twofold," Almeida told the Cook County Record. "First, they are brought only as class actions, which opens companies up to discovery regarding a large number of transactions. And second, plaintiffs' attorneys are bringing these cases without regard for the fact that class-wide damages are very low. Usually these transactions involve the alleged improper collection of between $0.02 and $0.21. Despite that, class-wide damages are very low (likely less than $50,000)." The new tax requires sellers of sweetened beverages to add $0.01 per ounce to any beverage that contains sugar, sucrose, glucose or an artificial sweetener like aspartame. Beverages like coffee and tea, which are typically sweetened by the buyer, aren't affected. Almeida doesn't think the lawsuits are going to be a big headache for businesses. "The underlying theory of these lawsuits -- that companies are going out and intentionally overcharging taxes -- simply makes no sense," he said. "Companies do not keep these taxes. These cases are generally grounded in theories of fraud, which requires that the business intend for consumers to rely on a deceptive practice. Plaintiffs' lawyers are not going after bad actors; they are going after businesses acting in good faith to make every effort possible to comply with the change in law." Almeida said these cases are not likely certifiable as class actions. "Plaintiffs (more appropriately, their counsel) are manufacturing these cases by doing things like purchasing fountain drink cups and using self-service machines to select an unsweetened beverage after paying the tax," he said. "There is simply no way to identify a similar class of people, which would be plagued by a number of individualized questions." Almeida said he believes the only goal of these lawsuits is to coerce businesses into settling and paying plaintiffs' lawyers. "Plaintiffs' counsel rushed to file these lawsuits almost immediately after the tax became effective," he said. "Plaintiffs' counsel know that there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow--there is only so much in $.05 charges that can be at issue. No plaintiffs' lawyer would want to certify this class. It would cost more to get class members their relief than they would be entitled to. The cost of postage would cost more than class members would get. Knowing this, plaintiffs' counsels' only goal here is to force a quick settlement." Cook County may see a rush of lawsuits in the near future, but Almeida thinks that will subside. "Tax class actions go through momentary bursts of popularity, but quickly die down," he said. "A few years ago, there were a handful of lawsuits regarding taxing delivery fees and another handful of lawsuits of the proper tax treatment where coupons are used. Once businesses see these suits, everyone checks for compliance and moves on. And, plaintiffs' lawyers learn that these cases cost more than their worth, which naturally tamps down such cases." Right now, the lawsuits have focused on fairly large companies like Walgreens, Subway and PepsiCo. Almeida feels that plaintiffs lawyers won't go after mom-and-pop businesses. "The focus has been on companies with dozens of locations in Cook County in an effort to have as large a class as possible," he said. "There is no incentive to go after mom-and-pop shops as maximum class-wide damages are likely in the four figures." Almeida, however said there are things that businesses can do to protect themselves from these kinds of lawsuits. "First, make sure that your point of sale system is programmed properly," he said. "Second, make sure that your employees are aware of the tax and are trained in what beverages are and are not subject to the tax. And third, offer refunds of the tax whenever a customer comes forward regarding an improper tax assessment." [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381- 8268. * * * End of Transmission * * *