/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/171009.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, October 9, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 199
Headlines
ACE HOMECARE: Court Certifies WARN Act Class in "Molina" Suit
ADVANCE CASE: Faces "Saltzman" Suit in S.D. of Florida
ADVISORY BOARD: Faces Class Action Over Royall Integration
AETNA INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Over HIV-Related Records
ALLIED NEVADA: 2nd Amended Securities Suit Tossed with Prejudice
ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Ramirez" Suit in Eastern District of NY
AT&T: Memphis Residents Get Class Action Settlement Checks
BAIL BOND: Sued Over Failure to Return Bond Premiums
BANK MUTUAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
BIRCH TELECOM: Huskey Seeks to Certify Class of Customers in Mo.
BUS-TEV LLC: Faces "Tortoric" Suit in S. Dist. New York
CBE GROUP: Faces "Pinyuk" Suit in Eastern District of New York
CENERGY INT'L: Bid to Dismiss FAC in "Cummings" Suit Denied
COOK COUNTY, IL: Court Awards $11MM in Attys' Fees in "Young"
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Sanders" Class Suit in E.D. New York
CVS PHARMACY: Averts Workers' Race Discrimination Class Action
DEERE & CO: Bid to Dismiss Amended "Armstrong" Partly Granted
DENTAL SUPPLIES: Court Dismisses Antitrust Suit Against Burkhart
DFC GLOBAL: Settlement in Securities Fraud Suit Has Final OK
DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Wants Subway Soda Tax Class Action Dismissed
DUNLAP GARDINER: Faces "Nwaizuzu" Suit in N. Dist. Ga.
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Stabenow" Suit in M. Dist. Fla.
EQUIFAX INC: Summit Credit Union Files Class Action in Atlanta
EQUIFAX INC: City of San Francisco Files Data Breach Suit
EROS INT'L: New York Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
FAMILY FITNESS: Faces Class Action Over Cancellation Fees
FAMILY FITNESS: Responds to Class Action Over Cancellation Fees
FIRST POTOMAC: Robins Geller Files Securities Class Action
FIRST STEP: Bid to Dismiss FAC in "White" FDCPA Suit Denied
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: Blind People File Discrimination Class Action
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action
HAIMS MOTORS: Faces "Pinto" Suit in S. Dist. Fla.
HEALTH INSURANCE: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida
HOUSTON, TX: Faces Lawsuit Over Backlog of Untested Rape Kits
INWOOD RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC: Union Nonmembers Class Certified
JUDICIAL CORRECTION: Bid to Exclude Coon's Expert Report Denied
KC BEAUTY: Faces "Wan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KISS MY FACE: Seeks Dismissal of False Advertising Class Action
KONA BREWING: Court Allows False Labeling Class Action to Proceed
KOZENY MCCUBBIN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
LANNETT COMPANY: Judge Dismisses Pennsylvania Class Action
MICHIGAN, USA: Dearduff Moves to Certify Class of Prisoners
MISSOURI, USA: Gasca Seeks to Certify Class of Adult Parolees
MRS BPO LLC: Faces "Pinyuk" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
MUG SHOT: Arrestees' Publicity-Rights Class Action Can Proceed
NEW YORK: Black Detectives File Class Suit Over Promotions Bias
ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action
ORATOIRE SAINT-JOSEPH: Man Can Pursue Sexual Abuse Class Action
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Sued in Penn. Over Civil Rights Act Violation
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Oct. 27 Oil Spill Case Opt-Out Deadline Set
REHABCARE GROUP: $25MM Settlement in TCPA Suit Has Final Approval
RESTAURANT DELIVERY: Roberson May Notify Drivers of Class Suit
WEINSTEIN PINSON: Court Certifies Class in "Marquez" FDCPA Suit
SABER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Suber" Suit in M. Dist. Fla.
SAN BENITO TEXTILE: Faces "Oliva" Suit in S.D. Tex.
SCANA: Faces Racketeering Class Action in Columbia
SFILATINO LLC: Faces "Zepeda" Suit in S. Dist. Fla.
SHINE CORPORATE: Faces Class Action Over 73% Stock Price Drop
SIMON'S AGENCY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Muldowney" Suit Claims
STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Action Over Background Checks
SYNGENTA AG: Settles GMO Corn Class Action for More Than $1.4BB
TECH DATA: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida
TRANSDIGM GROUP: Class Period Extended in Securities Suit
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Judge Stays FLSA Suit Pending SCOTUS Ruling
UBER: San Antonio Drivers Plan to Join Class Suit Over Low Fares
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Investors File Class Action in California
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
ULLIANCE INC: Lucas's Motion to Certify Class Held in Abeyance
UNITED STATES: Must Face Class Action Over PACER Doc Fees
UNITED STATES: Class Action Filed to Halt Indonesian Deportations
VEON LTD: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Class Action Ruling
VIRGINIA: 1 Million Drivers Lost Licenses Over Unpaid Court Fees
WALMART STORES: Court Awards $12.9MM Class Action Attorneys' Fees
WASTE PRO: Faces "Wright" Suit in South Carolina
WELLS FARGO: In Settlement Talks in Mortgage Modifications Case
WISCONSIN, USA: Class of Juvenile Detainees Certified in JJ Suit
XCERRA CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action in Massachusetts
* Equifax Hack, Wells Fargo Scandal Reveal Arbitration Flaws
* Sen. Reed Opposes CFPB's Ban on Mandatory Arbitration Clauses
* Wisconsin State Bar Board Discusses Class Action Statutes
*********
ACE HOMECARE: Court Certifies WARN Act Class in "Molina" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James D. Whittemore granted in part the Plaintiffs' Rule
23 motion for class certification as to WARN act claims and common
law unpaid wage claims filed in the lawsuit titled TONI MOLINA, et
al. v. ACE HOMECARE LLC, BRL INVESTMENTS, LLC, ARTHUR BARLAAN and
JOCELYN BARLAAN, Case No. 8:16-cv-02214-JDW-TGW (M.D. Fla.).
The Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act are certified as a class and defined
as:
WARN Act Class:
Any employee of ACE HOMECARE, LLC in Florida who was not
given a minimum of 60 days' written notice of termination
and whose employment was terminated as a result of a "mass
layoff" or "plant closing" as defined in CPR 639.3 and
regulated by federal statute as codified under 29 U.S.C.
Section 2101 under the Workers Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act of 1988. The class excludes "part-time"
employees as defined under 29 U.S.C. Section 2101(a)(8).
The Plaintiffs have previously filed a Notice of Voluntary
Withdraw of Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Motion for Class Certification as
to Common Law Unpaid Wage Claims only.
Plaintiff Toni Molina is appointed as class representative, and
the law firms Wenzel, Fenton, Cabassa, P.A., and Black Rock Trial
Group are appointed as class counsel.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=msby4SnQ
ADVANCE CASE: Faces "Saltzman" Suit in S.D. of Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advance Case Parts,
Inc. The case is styled as Steven Saltzman, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Advance Case Parts,
Inc., Paul Podhurst and Ward Hude, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-
61940-KMW (S.D. Fla., October 2, 2017).
Advance Case Parts specializes in products and services for the
supermarket and food industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russell Scott Moriarty, Esq.
Levine & Blit, PLLC
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3601
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 967-3000
Fax: (212) 967-3010
Email: rsmesq1@gmail.com
ADVISORY BOARD: Faces Class Action Over Royall Integration
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Sept. 26
disclosed that a class action complaint was filed against The
Advisory Board Company (NYSE: ABCO). The complaint is brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Advisory Board securities between
January 21, 2015 and February 23, 2016, for alleged violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Advisory Board's officers
and directors. The Advisory Board Company provides best practices
research and insight, technology, consulting and management, and
data-enabled services in the United States and internationally.
View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/Advisory Board-
group-inc-september-2017
Advisory Board Accused Misrepresenting Success of Royall
Integration
According to the complaint, on December 10, 2014, Advisory Board
announced that it had signed a definitive agreement to acquire
Royall & Company. According to company officials the acquisition
provided a "fantastic platform for growth, expansion and member
value creation." Post-acquisition, officials were exceedingly
positive, touting how the integration was "going very well" and
was moving "more quickly than . . . planned." However, Advisory
Board concealed the fact that the integration of Royall had
serious problems and that Royall's Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer left the company shortly after the
acquisition. Before Royall's integration issues were disclosed to
the public, Michael Kirshbaum, Advisory Board's Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer, sold 31,500 shares of Advisory Board common
stock, worth over $1.7 million. Finally, on February 23, 2016,
Advisory Board issued a press release disclosing the financial
impact of the poorly integrated Royall acquisition. In the
announcement, officials revealed a net loss of $101.8 million for
the quarter ended December 21, 2015, and a goodwill impairment
charge of $95.7 million. They also disclosed that Royall ended
2015 with only 5% revenue growth, well below the previous guidance
that it would experience double digit growth. On this news,
Advisory Board's stock fell approximately 27% to close at $26.50
per share on February 4, 2016.
Advisory Board Shareholders Have Legal Options
Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.
Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
shareholder rights law firm. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested. [GN]
AETNA INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Over HIV-Related Records
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Crosby, writing for Law360, reports that a California
patient slapped Aetna Inc. with a proposed class action in federal
court on Sept. 25 over confidential HIV-related medical records
the company allegedly exposed when it mailed medical information
in envelopes with a large, clear plastic front.
The John Doe patient accused the Connecticut-based company of
sending information about pharmacy benefits pertaining to the
plaintiff's HIV medications in an envelope with a large glassine
window, resulting in the disclosure of the plaintiff's name,
medical diagnosis, HIV medications, and other insurance and
billing information.
The suit is at least the second federal lawsuit in California and
one of many that have appeared since the company disclosed that it
mailed roughly 12,000 individuals HIV information in letters with
a large front window earlier this summer.
Instead of taking reasonable precautions, such as reformatting its
letters or using envelopes with smaller transparent windows, the
patient said Aetna recklessly disclosed private medical
information, in violation of California's Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act.
"People living with HIV and AIDS face extreme stigma and
discrimination; and to ensure that people feel safe to come
forward and be tested and treated for HIV, the majority states
have enacted laws that protect the confidentiality of a person's
HIV-related information," the complaint said.
The lawsuit is the latest action in a series of complaints that
have popped up in the wake of the company's disclosure.
In August, California and Pennsylvania policyholders sued Aetna
after advocates revealed that patients had received the envelopes
on Aug. 24. In the Pennsylvania lawsuit, the policyholders
alleged Aetna's practice of sending the letters resulted from its
attempts to resolve two prior lawsuits in which it agreed to send
people letters informing them that they could pick up medication
in stores, rather than only receiving it by mail.
After the letter was sent in July, the California patient said
Aetna issued a follow-up notice in August revealing that the
privacy breach had occurred.
The episode caused the patient shock and embarrassment, resulting
in increased stress, humiliation and anxiety, the suit states.
The patient is seeking to represent any HIV patients in California
to whom Aetna mailed information about their medications using
envelopes with glassine windows in the past four years. Alongside
damages, the patient is seeking injunctive relief forcing the
company to change its practices, as well as attorneys' fees.
In addition to violating California's medical records act, the
lawsuit accuses Aetna of negligence and violating the state's
unfair competition law. The patient argued they would never have
done business with the company had it disclosed how it stored and
communicated medical information.
The patient's attorney, Abbas Kazerounian, told Law360 in an email
on Sept. 26 that he was sad for his clients and "hope to be able
to protect their rights moving forward."
A spokesperson for Aetna declined to comment.
Counsel information for Aetna was not immediately available.
The patient is represented by Abbas Kazerounian and Mona Amini of
Kazerounian Law Group APC.
Counsel information for Aetna was not immediately available.
The case is Doe v. Aetna, Inc. Case No. 3:17-cv-01947 (S.D. Cal.)
The case is assigned to Judge Marilyn L. Huff. The case was filed
September 25, 2017. [GN]
ALLIED NEVADA: 2nd Amended Securities Suit Tossed with Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE ALLIED NEVADA GOLD CORP., SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:14-cv-00175-LRH-WGC (D. Nev.), Judge Larry
R. Hicks of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
dismissed with prejudice the second consolidated amended complaint
("SAC").
The Plaintiffs filed the first complaint in this action on April
3, 2014. They brought this federal securities class action on
behalf of investors who purchased stock in Allied from Jan. 18,
2013, to Aug. 5, 2013.
The Court consolidated the case on Nov. 7, 2014, and named Andrey
Slomnitsky as the Lead Plaintiff. Allied then filed for Chapter
11 bankruptcy. The Plaintiffs filed the FAC on May 1, 2015. ECF
No. 98. Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint
("FAC") on Sep. 29, 2015. The Court dismissed the FAC on Aug. 8,
2016, but gave the Plaintiffs leave to amend. The Court dismissed
the FAC because the Plaintiffs' allegations failed to support the
idea that the Defendants knew the extent of the operational issues
at the time the alleged misrepresentations were made.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs failed to plead falsity, scienter, and
causation.
The Plaintiffs then filed the SAC on Nov. 3, 2016, alleging two
claims: (i) a violation of Section 10 under the Securities
Exchange Act ("SEA") and Rule 10(b)-5; and (ii) a violation of
Section 20(a) of the SEA. The Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC
on Jan. 25, 2017. They also requested judicial notice of Allied's
stock prices and the cost of gold on various dates. The
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion, and the Defendants
replied.
Judge Hicks finds that the Plaintiffs (i) fail to support the
contention that the Defendants' statements during the class period
regarding the operational issues at the Lewis leach pad were false
or were lacking a reasonable basis in fact; (ii) fail to plead
falsity in regards to statements made about Allied's cash position
and access to capital; (iii) fail to allege facts to support the
idea that the statements went beyond optimism based on legitimate
business judgment into the realm of falsehood; (iv) fail to meet
the heightened pleading standard required of them to allege
falsity as to the Defendants' statements regarding financial
guidance; and (v) fail to identify an actionable misstatement.
With respect to the Plaintiffs' argument that the Defendants'
statements do not fall within the safe harbor provision of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") because
statements of past or present fact do not fall within the safe
harbor provision even if the statements are inextricably
intertwined with forward-looking statements, the Judge finds that
the statements are inactionable under the safe harbor provision of
the PSLRA.
With respect to scienter, Judge Hicks concludes the Plaintiffs
fail to sufficiently plead scienter. The Plaintiffs fail to
buttress their allegations with detailed and specific allegations
about the Defendants' exposure to the blinding condition. They
fail to include the specific admissions required by the Ninth
Circuit to bring the instant claims under the core-operations
doctrine because the Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a single,
specific, and identified issue.
As to loss causation, Judge Hicks concludes that the Plaintiffs
have not adequately alleged loss causation. By recycling the same
allegations from the FAC and the same arguments from their
opposition to the motion to dismiss the FAC, the Plaintiffs again
fail to offer an adequate explanation as to why Allied's stock
price was tied to the price of gold after one disclosure by the
Defendants but not the other.
Becauase the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b)-5 claim fails for the
reasons discussed, accordingly, the Judge must also dismiss their
Section 20(a) claim since no primary violation of federal
securities law survives the instant motion to dismiss.
Finally, Judge Hicks dismissed Plaintiffs' SAC with prejudice. On
Aug. 8, 2016, the Court issued an order identifying and explaining
the inadequacies found in the Plaintiffs' FAC. In filing the SAC,
the Plaintiffs failed to address the Court's concerns and,
therefore, failed once again to allege falsity, scienter, and loss
causation under Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA. Because they have filed
three versions of their allegations since the beginning of this
matter and have had three years to hone their claims, the Judge
now dismissed the SAC with prejudice. Accordingly, Judge Hicks
granted Defendants Scott Caldwell, Robert Buchan, Randy
Buffington, and Stephen Jones' Motion to Dismiss the Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/kkXWcr from Leagle.com.
Andrey Slomnitsky, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Brian E. Lunt,
Aaron & Paternoster, Ltd..
Andrey Slomnitsky, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Charles J.
Piven -- piven@browerpriven.com -- Brower Piven, pro hac vice,
David A.P. Brower -- brower@browerpiven.com -- Brower Piven &
Martin A. Muckleroy -- info@muckleroylunt.com -- Muckleroy Lunt.
Movses Marjanian, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Alba, Jr. --
malba@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Martin A. Muckleroy, Muckleroy Lunt, Samuel H. Rudman --
srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice & David C. OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C..
Jose Parraga, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew L. Sharp, Matthew
L. Sharp, Ltd..
Jeanette Parraga, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew L. Sharp,
Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd..
Janet Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R. Muehlbauer --
andrew@mlolegal.com -- Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd., pro hac vice,
Griffith H. Hayes -- ghayes@cookseylaw.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP
& Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice.
Jeff Croucier, Movant, represented by Erik D. Buzzard --
ebuzzard@palumbolawyers.com -- Palumbo Bergstrom LLP & Sean P.
Connell -- sconnell@palumbolawyers.com -- Palumbo Bergstrom LLP.
LBP Holdings Ltd., Movant, represented by Griffith H. Hayes,
Litchfield Cavo LLP, Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP & Andrew R. Muehlbauer,
Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd., pro hac vice.
Richard Heil, Movant, represented by Naumon A. Amjed --
namjed@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Ryan Thomas
Degnan -- rdegnan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP &
Kirk B. Lenhard -- klenhard@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck, LLP.
State-Boston Retirement System, Movant, represented by Christopher
Joseph Keller -- ckeller@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP,
Michael W. stocker -- mstocker@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP
& Kirk B. Lenhard -- klenhard@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck, LLP.
United Teamster Pension Fund-A, Movant, represented by Brian O.
O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
Sherman Olson, Movant, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
Susan Olson, Movant, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
Thomas Frost, Movant, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Michael M.
Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC, pro hac vice & Patrick R. Leverty --
pat@levertylaw.com -- Leverty & Associates Chtd.
Beth Frost, Movant, represented by Patrick R. Leverty, Leverty &
Associates Chtd.
Beth Thomas, Movant, represented by Patrick R. Leverty, Leverty &
Associates Chtd.
Allied Nevada Gold Corp., Defendant, represented by Brendan Peter
Cullen -- cullenb@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac
vice, Laura K. Oswell -- welll@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Lyon Green --
nn@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice & Robert
A. Sacks -- sacksr@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP., pro
hac vice.
Scott A Caldwell, Defendant, represented by Anjali D. Webster --
AWebster@dickinson-wright.com -- Gordon Silver, Brendan Peter
Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Brian R. Irvine --
BIrvine@dickinson-wright.com -- Dickinson Wright, Laura K. Oswell,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Lyon Green,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A. Sacks, Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP., pro hac vice & John Patrick Desmond --
jdesmond@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC.
Robert M Buchan, Defendant, represented by Anjali D. Webster,
Gordon Silver, Brendan Peter Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro
hac vice, Brian R. Irvine, Dickinson Wright, Laura K. Oswell,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Lyon Green,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A. Sacks, Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP., pro hac vice & John Patrick Desmond, Dickinson
Wright PLLC.
Randy E Buffington, Defendant, represented by Anjali D. Webster,
Gordon Silver, Brendan Peter Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro
hac vice, Brian R. Irvine, Dickinson Wright, Laura K. Oswell,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Lyon Green,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A. Sacks, Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP., pro hac vice & John Patrick Desmond, Dickinson
Wright PLLC.
Stephen M Jones, Defendant, represented by Anjali D. Webster,
Gordon Silver, Brendan Peter Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro
hac vice, Brian R. Irvine, Dickinson Wright, Laura K. Oswell,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Lyon Green,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A. Sacks, Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP., pro hac vice & John Patrick Desmond, Dickinson
Wright PLLC.
Jeff Croucier, Defendant, represented by Erik D. Buzzard, Palumbo
Bergstrom LLP & Sean P. Connell, Palumbo Bergstrom LLP.
ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Ramirez" Suit in Eastern District of NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Karen M. Ramirez and Lisa
Caceres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-05768 (E.D.N.Y., October 2, 2017).
Asset Recovery is a full service asset recovery management company
that is committed to establishing unmatched standards of
performance.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Sanders Law, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com
AT&T: Memphis Residents Get Class Action Settlement Checks
----------------------------------------------------------
Ron Maxey, writing for The Commercial Appeal, reports that don't
throw away those AT&T settlement checks if they show up in your
mail box. They're legit.
Many Memphis area residents have received one or more checks from
AT&T that, at quick glance, can appear to be the kind of
solicitation that commits you to a service or loan if cashed.
In this case, however, the checks are for real. They are the
result of a class-action legal agreement in a case dating to 2011
over charges for data services. If you received a check or
checks, it means you had service with the company or its
forerunners between certain dates in 2005 and 2010.
The checks are a result of that settlement, and ATT officials
confirm they are safe to cash in the same way as any other check.
More information on the settlement can be found at
attmsettlement.com. [GN]
BAIL BOND: Sued Over Failure to Return Bond Premiums
----------------------------------------------------
Harwood Feffer LLP and the Law Offices of Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
on Sept. 25 announced the filing of an action against bail bond
agents for failure to return bond premiums to the indemnitors even
though the criminal defendant was not released from custody (the
"Class").
If you believe that you are a member of the proposed Class or have
information, please contact Daniella Quitt at dquitt@hfesq.com or
Andrew Bluestone at alb@bluestonelawfirm.com to discuss your
rights.
The class in this action has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
Contact:
Daniella Quitt, Esq.
Harwood Feffer LLP
488 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Phone Numbers: (877) 935-7400
(212)935-7400
Email: dquitt@hfesq.com
Site: http://www.hfesq.com
Follow us on Twitter: @HarwoodFeffer
Andrew Lavoott Bluetsone, Esq.
Law Office of Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
233 Broadway
Suite 2702
New York, NY 10279
Phone: (212) 791-5600
Fax: (212) 513-7206
Email: ALB@bluestonelawfirm.com
Site: https://www.bluestonelawfirm.com
Harwood Feffer -- http://www.hfesq.com-- represents individuals
and institutions or many years, serving as lead counsel in
numerous cases in federal and state courts. [GN]
BANK MUTUAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on Sept. 26 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf of holders of Bank Mutual
Corporation ("Bank Mutual") (Nasdaq:BKMU) common stock in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Bank Mutual by
Associated Banc-Corp. ("Associated") announced on July 20, 2017
(the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Bank Mutual, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), and Associated, is captioned Parshall v.
Bank Mutual Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-01209 (E.D. Wis.).
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-
legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.
On July 20, 2017, Bank Mutual entered into an agreement and plan
of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Associated. Pursuant to
the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Bank Mutual will receive
0.422 shares of Associated common stock for each share of Bank
Mutual common stock they own (the "Proposed Transaction").
Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4
Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on August 21,
2017. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement,
which recommends that Bank Mutual stockholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to
enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote
on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with
respect to Bank Mutual's and Associated's financial projections,
the analyses performed by Bank Mutual's financial advisor, and
potential conflicts of interest. The Complaint seeks injunctive
and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Bank
Mutual common stock.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 27, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.
With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com--
regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and
shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in
state and federal courts throughout the United States. [GN]
BIRCH TELECOM: Huskey Seeks to Certify Class of Customers in Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned RICHARD W. HUSKEY,
personally and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BIRCH
TELECOM OF MISSOURI, INC., dba BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and
IONEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-02415-JAR (Mo. Cir.
Ct., St. Louis Cty.), seeks certification of this Class:
All Missouri citizens who, at any time during the Class
Period, were residential Birch customers considered by Birch
as bound by the MSA.
The Class Period runs from August 17, 2012 to August 17,
2017.
The lawsuit is brought over the Defendants' alleged violations of
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act by systematically
employing a uniform telemarketing scheme to unfairly enrich
themselves through industrial-scale unconscionable telemarketing,
contracting and collection of fees from Missouri residential
telecommunications consumers.
Mr. Huskey also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative, and to appoint Daniel Harvath, Esq., and Harvath
Law Group, LLC, as class counsel, to stay further certification
briefing, and to grant him any additional relief deemed proper.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=j5B6x3hU
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
HARVATH LAW GROUP, LLC
75 W. Lockwood, Suite #1
Webster Groves, MO 63119
Telephone: (314) 550-3717
E-mail: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com
BUS-TEV LLC: Faces "Tortoric" Suit in S. Dist. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bus-Tev, LLC d/b/a
Early Morning Seafood. The case is styled as Carmelo Tortoric and
Yovanny Madera, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Bus-Tev, LLC d/b/a Early Morning Seafood and Eric
Tevrow, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07507 (S.D.N.Y., October 2,
2017).
Bus-Tev, LLC d/b/a Early Morning Seafood is in the seafoods
business.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert Daniel Salaman, Esq.
Akin Law Group, PLLC
45 Broadway, Suite 2650
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (610) 505-7674
Fax: (212) 825-1440
Email: rob@akinlaws.com
CBE GROUP: Faces "Pinyuk" Suit in Eastern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The CBE Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Nataliya Pinyuk, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. The CBE
Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05753 (E.D.N.Y., October
2, 2017).
CBE Group provides accounts receivable management and debt
collection services for clients in the education, financial, and
healthcare industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maxim Maximov, Esq.
Maxim Maximov, LLP
1701 Avenue P
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Tel: (718) 395-3459
Fax: (718) 408-9570
Email: m@maximovlaw.com
CENERGY INT'L: Bid to Dismiss FAC in "Cummings" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DONNIE CUMMINGS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CENERGY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00484-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal.), Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California held in
abeyance Plaintiffs Cummings and Charles Beaty's motion for a
preliminary injunction against the Defendant until Cenergy's
motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds is resolved, and
denied Cenergy's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint ("FAC").
The Plaintiffs performed work for the Chevron corporation as well
site/drill site managers, and allege they were intentionally
misclassified as independent contractors by Chevron and
impermissibly denied overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"). They are pursuing claims in collective
actions under the FLSA against Chevron in separate proceedings:
McQueen, et al. v. Chevron, No. 4:16-cv-02089-JSW (N.D. Cal.),
filed on April 20, 2016 ("underlying FLSA litigation"), and
Cummings v. Chevron, JAMS Arbitration Reference No. 1100086694.
According to the Plaintiffs, although Chevron controlled the
Plaintiffs' work and directly supervised them, Chevron attempted
to insulate itself from FLSA liability by creating an artificially
complex structure to employ them. Specifically, Chevron
contracted with Cenergy to be an intermediary between Chevron and
the Plaintiffs.
On April 5, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, seeking a
declaration under 28 U.S.C. Section 2201, the Declaratory Judgment
Act, that Cenergy has no legal right to attempt to collect or
obtain, through the Court or arbitration, the wages that the
Plaintiffs seek from Chevron or associated penalties, damages, and
interest, or Chevron's or Cenergy's defenses costs, including
attorneys' fees.
On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction asserting that Cenergy has commenced arbitration
against Plaintiffs' corporate entities pursuant to the MSAs. They
seek to enjoin those arbitration proceedings and to halt Cenergy
from attempting to collect indemnification.
On May 2, 2017, Cenergy filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cenergy's motion to dismiss was
granted, and the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint June 29,
2017.
Currently pending is Cenergy's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on the grounds that the Plaintiffs
lack standing in their individual capacities to challenge the
Master Services Agreements ("MSAs").
Judge O'Neill finds that the Plaintiffs formed corporate entities
at the specific request of Cenergy, and it was Cenergy who
implemented this policy and ensured that all necessary changes
were made by the Plaintiffs. Cenergy also communicated directly
with its site managers about how to create these corporate
entities. Chevron and Cenergy specifically solicited Plaintiff
Beaty to perform work for Chevron and then conditioned payment for
Plaintiff Beaty's services on Plaintiff Beaty's formation of a
corporate entity.
Cenergy must have understood the MSA was entered into for
Plaintiff Beaty's benefit. Similarly, by mandatorily conditioning
Plaintiff Cummings' payment for work performed for Chevron on
formation of a corporate entity, Cenergy must have understood the
MSA with Cummings' corporate entity was entered into for Plaintiff
Cummings' benefit alone. At the pleading stage, this is
sufficient to confer standing on the Plaintiffs as a third-party
beneficiary under the MSAs.
Judge O'Neill further finds that the Plaintiffs offer statements
made in a settlement negotiation to demonstrate they have
standing. This is not an inadmissible use of settlement
negotiations under Rule 408. Cenergy is unwilling to relinquish
any right it may have to pursue its indemnity claim, and has
expressly maintained it will bring suit when it deems necessary.
These facts together constitute a threat of suit against the
Plaintiffs in their individual capacity giving rise to standing.
In sum, the Plaintiffs have plausibly established the declaration
they seek is not necessarily contingent on any finding the Court
may make in the underlying FLSA suit. The Plaintiffs seek a
declaration that the public policy of the FLSA is violated by
contractual indemnity provisions attempting to shift liability
and/or attorney's fees stemming from an FLSA claim regardless of
the outcome of that FLSA litigation.
At the pleading stage, the declaration the Plaintiffs seek is both
viable and the controversy is sufficiently immediate such that it
is jurisdictionally ripe. Whether the Plaintiffs' theory prevails
on the merits will be tested on a more detailed record and with
more thorough briefing, and Cenergy is not precluded from raising
this issue again at that time.
Finally, because the FAC includes more developed allegations
relevant to standing and the Plaintiffs' theory of
unenforceability of the MSAs indemnity clauses, the Plaintiffs
will inform the Court whether there is any need to amend their
pending motion for a preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs will
also provide a brief status of the arbitration proceedings.
For these reasons, Judge O'Neill denied Cenergy's motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Within two days,
the Plaintiffs will notify the Court whether (i) they wish to
amend their motion for a preliminary injunction in light of the
FAC and the time they need to do so; and (ii) provide a brief
status update on the pending arbitration with Cenergy. If no
amended briefing is required on the Plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction, the Court will take that matter under
submission and issue an Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2017 Memorandum Decision
and Order is available at https://is.gd/aHHiW6 from Leagle.com.
Donnie Cummings, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew C. Helland --
helland@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP.
Donnie Cummings, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Solomon Brome --
dbrome@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP.
Christopher Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew C. Helland,
Nichols Kaster, LLP & Daniel Solomon Brome, Nichols Kaster, LLP.
Charles Beaty, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew C. Helland,
Nichols Kaster, LLP & Daniel Solomon Brome, Nichols Kaster, LLP.
Cenergy International Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Nina Huerta -- nhuerta@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord Bissell &
Liddell LLP.
COOK COUNTY, IL: Court Awards $11MM in Attys' Fees in "Young"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and incentive awards in the
case captioned KIM YOUNG, RONALD JOHNSON, WILLIAM JONES, ALLEN
GORMAN, GERRAD LAMOUR, LEE MERCADO, BRADLEY HYTREK, CARL GRAY, and
MATTHEW LIPTAK, on behalf of themselves and a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF COOK and SHERIFF TOM
DART in his capacity as Head of the Cook County Sheriff's
Department, Defendants, Case No. 06 C 552 (N.D. Ill.).
In 2010, Plaintiff Young and eight others, on behalf of a class of
similarly situated pretrial detainees, entered into a $55 million
settlement with Cook County regarding alleged civil rights
violations in the Cook County Jail. The Court approved the
settlement in 2011. Under the terms of the settlement, the
counsel for the Plaintiff class sued a number of Cook County's
insurers in state court for failing to contribute insurance
coverage to assist the County in settling the class action. The
County later joined the lawsuit.
In 2017, after hard-fought litigation, the class counsel
negotiated a settlement involving a $52 million payment by the
insurers. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the Young insurance settlement on Sept. 14, 2017. Of
this, $32.5 million has been allocated to the class; the rest will
go to the County and the State of Illinois.
The class counsel have asked the Court to award attorney's fees in
the amount of one-third of the $32.5 million common fund, after
the costs of administration are subtracted, plus costs for the
notice mailing. The class counsel further asks the Court to
approve payment of $10,000 incentive awards to the nine Named
Plaintiffs in this case. The Illinois Attorney General has filed
an amicus brief opposing the request for attorney's fees. The
Court also received four objections from class members to the size
of the requested fee award. The Court has approved the
supplemental settlement and has taken the petition for fees,
costs, and incentive awards under advisement.
Judge Kennelly concludes that the Plaintiffs' counsel have
provided sufficient support for their contention that a 33%
contingent fee of the total recovery is on the low end of what is
typically negotiated ex ante by the Plaintiffs' firms taking on
large, complex cases analogous to the Young insurance case. The
Judge further finds that one-third of the common fund is a
reasonable reflection of the hypothetical market price of Loevy's
services in this case and thus an appropriate fee award.
For these reasons, Judge Kennelly approved the Plaintiffs'
counsel's request for attorney's fees in the amount of one-third
of the common fund, net of administrative expenses, and overruled
all related objections. He also approved the request for
reimbursement of the expenses related to the notice mailing for
the settlement. The approval of expenses is subject to
presentation of documentation establishing the amount and
reasonableness of the expenses involved.
Judge Kennelly also concludes that the Named plaintiffs have been
involved in the Young litigation for over 11 years. After helping
to obtain a $55 million settlement payment for the class in Young
I, the Named Plaintiffs could have decided that they had done
enough. But to further protect the interests of the class, they
agreed to continue to represent the class in the Young insurance
case, even though it meant an additional five years of litigation.
As a result of the Named Plaintiffs' dedication to seeing the
Young insurance case through, the class will receive an additional
benefit of $32.5 million. For those reasons, Judge Kennelly
approved the requested $10,000 incentive awards.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/m480n8 from Leagle.com.
Kim Young, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur R. Loevy --
arthur@loevy.com -- Loevy & Loevy.
Kim Young, Plaintiff, represented by Cindy Tsai -- cindy@loevy.com
-- Loevy & Loevy, Heather Lewis Donnell -- heather@loevy.com --
Loevy & Loevy, Jonathan I. Loevy -- jon@loevy.com -- Loevy &
Loevy, Julie Marie Goodwin -- julie@loevy.com -- Loevy & Loevy,
Michael I. Kanovitz -- mike@loevy.com -- Loevy & Loevy, Roshna
Bala Keen -- roshna@loevy.com -- Loevy and Loevy & Scott R.
Rauscher, Loevy and Loevy.
Ronald Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur R. Loevy, Loevy &
Loevy, Cindy Tsai, Loevy & Loevy, Heather Lewis Donnell, Loevy &
Loevy, Jonathan I. Loevy, Loevy & Loevy, Julie Marie Goodwin,
Loevy & Loevy, Michael I. Kanovitz, Loevy & Loevy, Roshna Bala
Keen, Loevy and Loevy & Scott R. Rauscher, Loevy and Loevy.
William Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Cindy Tsai, Loevy &
Loevy, Heather Lewis Donnell, Loevy & Loevy, Julie Marie Goodwin,
Loevy & Loevy, Michael I. Kanovitz, Loevy & Loevy, Roshna Bala
Keen, Loevy and Loevy & Scott R. Rauscher, Loevy and Loevy.
Allen Gorman, Plaintiff, represented by Cindy Tsai, Loevy & Loevy,
Heather Lewis Donnell, Loevy & Loevy, Julie Marie Goodwin, Loevy &
Loevy, Michael I. Kanovitz, Loevy & Loevy & Scott R. Rauscher,
Loevy and Loevy.
Gerrad Lamour, Plaintiff, represented by Cindy Tsai, Loevy &
Loevy, Heather Lewis Donnell, Loevy & Loevy, Julie Marie Goodwin,
Loevy & Loevy, Michael I. Kanovitz, Loevy & Loevy & Scott R.
Rauscher, Loevy and Loevy.
Lee Mercado, Plaintiff, represented by Cindy Tsai, Loevy & Loevy,
Heather Lewis Donnell, Loevy & Loevy, Julie Marie Goodwin, Loevy &
Loevy, Michael I. Kanovitz, Loevy & Loevy & Scott R. Rauscher,
Loevy and Loevy.
Bradley Hytrek, Plaintiff, represented by Cindy Tsai, Loevy &
Loevy, Heather Lewis Donnell, Loevy & Loevy, Julie Marie Goodwin,
Loevy & Loevy, Michael I. Kanovitz, Loevy & Loevy & Scott R.
Rauscher, Loevy and Loevy.
Carl Gray, Plaintiff, represented by Cindy Tsai, Loevy & Loevy,
Heather Lewis Donnell, Loevy & Loevy, Julie Marie Goodwin, Loevy &
Loevy, Michael I. Kanovitz, Loevy & Loevy & Scott R. Rauscher,
Loevy and Loevy.
Matthew Liptak, Plaintiff, represented by Cindy Tsai, Loevy &
Loevy, Heather Lewis Donnell, Loevy & Loevy, Julie Marie Goodwin,
Loevy & Loevy, Michael I. Kanovitz, Loevy & Loevy & Scott R.
Rauscher, Loevy and Loevy.
County of Cook, Defendant, represented by Francis J. Catania, Cook
County State's Attorney.
Michael Sheahan, Defendant, represented by Daniel Francis
Gallagher, Cook County State's Attorney, Christopher Paul Keleher,
The Keleher Appellate Law Group, LLC, Dominick L. Lanzito --
dlanzito@pjmlaw.com -- Peterson Johnson & Murray, Francis J.
Catania, Cook County State's Attorney, Ghazal Sharifi, City of
Evanston Law Department, Lawrence S. Kowalczyk --
lkowalczyk@querrey.com -- Querrey & Harrow, Ltd., Paul A. O'Grady
-- pogrady@pjmlaw.com -- Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC &
Terrence Franklin Guolee, Querrey & Harrow, Ltd..
Callie Baird, Defendant, represented by Daniel Francis Gallagher,
Cook County State's Attorney, Dominick L. Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray, Lawrence S. Kowalczyk, Querrey & Harrow, Ltd.,
Paul A. O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC &
Terrence Franklin Guolee, Querrey & Harrow, Ltd..
Scott Kurdovich, Defendant, represented by Daniel Francis
Gallagher, Cook County State's Attorney, Dominick L. Lanzito,
Peterson Johnson & Murray, Lawrence S. Kowalczyk, Querrey &
Harrow, Ltd., Paul A. O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago
LLC & Terrence Franklin Guolee, Querrey & Harrow, Ltd..
Director Salavador Godinez, Defendant, represented by Daniel
Francis Gallagher, Cook County State's Attorney, Dominick L.
Lanzito, Peterson Johnson & Murray, Lawrence S. Kowalczyk, Querrey
& Harrow, Ltd., Paul A. O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray
Chicago LLC & Terrence Franklin Guolee, Querrey & Harrow, Ltd..
Marlon Robertson, Defendant, Pro Se.
Attorney General of the State of Illinois, Amicus, represented by
Elizabeth Mary Hady, Staff Attorney's Office For The U.S. Court Of
Appeals F, John P. Wolfsmith, Office of the Attorney General &
Long Xuan Truong, Office of the Illinois Attorney General.
Benito Hernandez, Movant, Pro Se.
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Sanders" Class Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Credit Control
Services, Inc.
The case is captioned Max W. Sanders, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Credit Control Services, Inc., Case
No. 2:17-cv-05542 (E.D.N.Y., September 21, 2017).
Credit Control Services, Inc. provides business process
outsourcing solutions for customers in the United States.
Max W. Sanders is a pro se plaintiff.
CVS PHARMACY: Averts Workers' Race Discrimination Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lidgett and Braden Campbell, writing for Law360, report that
a federal district judge on Sept. 26 refused to certify a suit
alleging race discrimination at CVS' New York City stores as a
class action, saying it was apparent that a class action wasn't
superior to individual actions.
U.S. District Judge John Koeltl denied a bid to certify a class of
black and Hispanic CVS market investigators and/or store
detectives who worked in New York City or under the same regional
loss prevention managers as New York market investigators, in a
suit over an allegedly hostile work environment caused by
directions to use racial profiling against Hispanic and black
store customers and by a purported barrage of racial slurs.
The judge said the plaintiffs haven't show there are common
questions of fact or law that could be answered on a class-wide
basis that cover every person in the proposed class who worked for
all of the same regional loss prevention managers over an extended
time period.
"This is particularly true when they have only adduced evidence of
racially hostile remarks by four of the 12 RLPMs, and the
interactions between potential class members and those RLPMS
necessarily varied," the judge wrote.
The judge did, however, deny CVS' motions for summary judgment
that sought to dismiss the claims. The judge said there were
still genuine disputes of material fact relating to whether
plaintiff Mominna Ansoralli was subjected to a hostile work
environment and that CVS doesn't dispute that plaintiff
Zaire Lamarr-Arruz was subjected to such an environment.
Former CVS worker Lamarr-Arruz, who at the time went by Sheree
Steele, and three New York colleagues filed suit in June 2015
alleging CVS' market investigators, who monitor stores for theft,
were directed by supervisors to target black and Hispanic
shoppers. The other three workers voluntarily dismissed their
claims against CVS in August 2015, and Ansoralli was added in a
December 2015 amended complaint.
This complaint, the suit's latest, alleged CVS violated state and
federal civil rights law by discriminating against minorities and
retaliating against workers who spoke up.
A CVS spokesman said in a statement the plaintiffs' attorneys
haven't been able to produce documentary evidence supporting the
allegations in the suit, and that CVS has firm nondiscrimination
policies that are rigorously enforced.
"We do not tolerate any practices that discriminate against any of
our customers or employees. Our market investigator training
explicitly prohibits the profiling of customers," the spokesman
said. "Any surveillance and observation activity must be based
only on the actions and behaviors of the individual and not on an
individual's characteristics, including race."
David Gottlieb, Esq. -- dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com -- a Wigdor LLP
attorney representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement on Sept.
26 the case at hand involves only two out of 16 store detectives
his office represents who have alleged racial discrimination and
profiling at CVS, and that the company has filed numerous summary
judgment bids trying to dismiss the claims. He said he looks
forward to presenting all the evidence his firm has amassed before
a jury.
"Given that numerous store detectives have alleged a near endless
array of discriminatory epithets, directives and treatment in New
York City, we firmly believe that this action involved a common
question that could have been answered on a class basis," Gottlieb
said regarding the class certification denial. "Unfortunately,
Judge Koeltl disagreed with us on this technical issue."
The workers are represented by David Gottlieb, Michael Willemin
-- mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com -- and Kenneth Sommer --
ksommer@wigdorlaw.com -- of Wigdor LLP.
CVS is represented by Nancy E. Rafuse --
nrafuse@polsinelli.com -- J. Stanton Hill -- jshill@polsinelli.com
-- William B. Hill Jr. -- wbhill@polsinelli.com -- Stephanie D.
Delatorre -- sdelatorre@polsinelli.com -- and Jason A. Nagi --
jnagi@polsinelli.com -- of Polsinelli PC.
The case is Steele v. CVS Pharmacy Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04261
(S.D.N.Y.). The case is assigned to Judge John G. Koeltl. The
case was filed June 3, 2015. [GN]
DEERE & CO: Bid to Dismiss Amended "Armstrong" Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CRAIG ARMSTRONG on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DEERE & COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00844-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind.), Judge Tanya
Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
Armstrong is a farmer and resident of Indiana. In 2014, he
purchased a new John Deere 1770NT seed planter from an authorized
Deere dealer in Greenfield, Indiana. Throughout the years,
Armstrong used other models of Deere planters without any
substantial problems. In 2014, however, Deere changed the design
of its planters and created the Planter at issue. Similar to
prior models, the Planter is constructed with hoses that connect
the fertilizer nozzles to the fertilizer reservoir. Unlike prior
models, however, the Planter was equipped with hoses of various,
rather than equal, lengths.
Deere did not notify customers of this change in design. On April
20, 2014, after Armstrong planted approximately 2,740 acres of
corn crops, he discovered that the Planter failed to evenly
fertilize the crop. The net result of the defect was uneven
fertilizer distribution, uneven emergence and growth of crops,
and, ultimately, decreased overall crop yield and profits.
On Aug. 15, 2016, Armstrong filed an Amended Complaint against
Deere, alleging the Planter does not conform to its express
representation. The Amended Complaint is brought on his own
behalf, and on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all person
or entities domiciled or residing in the United States who
purchased or leased the year 2014 planter manufactured by Deere.
The Amended Complaint asserts fifteen tort- and contract-based
counts, specifically: (i) Count I - breach of consumer and market
protection statutes for all 50 states, including Indiana Code
Section 24-5-0.5-1 et seq.; (ii) Count II - breach of Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ICFA); (iii)
Count III - breach of express warranty; (iv) Count IV - breach of
implied warranty of merchantability; (v) Count V - revocation of
acceptance; (vi) Count VI - tortious interference with business
relationships; (vii) Count VII - constructive fraud; (viii) Count
VIII - common law fraud; (ix) Count IX - fraudulent
misrepresentation; (x) Count X - breach of contract; (xi) Count XI
- implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (xii) Count XII
- fraudulent concealment; (xiii) Count XIII - negligence; (xiv)
Count XIV - negligent misrepresentation; and (xv) Count XV -
unjust enrichment.
On Sept. 14, 2016, Deere moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in
its entirety for failure to state a claim. In response, Armstrong
withdrew several of the claims alleged in the Amended Complaint,
including Counts III to VI, X, XI and XIII. Pending before the
Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendant pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Judge Pratt finds that the Amended Complaint fails to state a
claim for breach of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act;
breach of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices
Act; constructive fraud; common law fraud; fraudulent concealment;
fraudulent misrepresentation; and negligent misrepresentation, and
these claims are dismissed with prejudice. The Judge, however,
concludes that Armstrong has properly pled a state law claim for
Count XV - unjust enrichment and this claim survives the initial
hurdle of a motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated, Judge
Pratt granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/VWfXV7 from Leagle.com.
CRAIG ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff, represented by James W. Anderson,
HEINS MILLS & OLSON, PLC, pro hac vice.
CRAIG ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Ruskin Reese --
jreese@WagnerReese.com -- WAGNER REESE & CROSSEN, LLP, Renae D.
Steiner, HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C., pro hac vice & Stephen M.
Wagner -- swagner at wagnerreese.com -- WAGNER REESE LLP.
DEERE & COMPANY, Defendant, represented by Christina Laun Fugate -
- christina.fugate@icemiller.com -- ICE MILLER LLP, Judith S.
Okenfuss -- judy.okenfuss@icemiller.com -- ICE MILLER LLP, Kevin
B. Reidy -- kreidy@rshc-law.com -- RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA
LLP, pro hac vice & Sondra Hemeryck -- shemeryck@rshc-law.com --
RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP, pro hac vice.
DENTAL SUPPLIES: Court Dismisses Antitrust Suit Against Burkhart
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re DENTAL SUPPLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case No. 16 Civ. 696 (BMC)(GRB)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Brian M. Cogan
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
granted Defendant Burkhart's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
The Plaintiffs are a group of dental practices and dentists.
Defendants Henry Schein, Benco, and Patterson are the three
largest distributors of dental supplies and equipment in the
United States, collectively controlling roughly 85% of the market,
while Defendant Burkhart is a minor distributor.
The Complaint broadly alleges that the Defendants have engaged in
conduct that has led to higher prices for dental supplies and
eliminated competition between defendants, thereby keeping their
profit margins artificially high. The Complaint alleges a per se
illegal agreement not to compete on price, and this agreement was
implemented through three separate mechanisms: margin- and price-
fixing, anti-poaching agreements, and group boycotts. Through
these mechanisms, all four Defendants blocked entry into the
market for new competitors who would have charged lower prices for
dental supplies and taken market share from them.
The Plaintiffs allege that Burkhart is plausibly implicated in at
least the first and third components, that is, the price-fixing
and market boycotts. As to the boycott, the Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants Henry Schein and Burkhart exerted pressure on
manufacturer Pelton & Crane in January 2008 to cut off Archer &
White because of Archer & White's lower 15% margins on dental
products.
Burkhart moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Burkhart argues that,
whether the Court considers Burkhart's conduct or the conduct of a
group purchasing organization that sold Burkhart products,
Burkhart has no New York presence and does not transact business
sufficient to provide the Court with personal jurisdiction under
New York's long-arm statute and consistent with the Due Process
Clause.
Subsequent to the parties' briefing on the motion to dismiss, the
Supreme Court resolved Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court
of California, which considered the question of specific
jurisdiction, and the Court requested additional briefing.
The Plaintiffs recognize that Burkhart is not "at home" in New
York, such that the Court does not have general jurisdiction over
Burkhart. Rather, the Plaintiffs argue that the Court has
specific jurisdiction over Burkhart. Judge Cogan finds that the
Plaintiffs' argument fails, however, because the Complaint and
opposition papers contain no plausible allegations that would
permit the Court to, consistent with the Due Process Clause,
assert specific jurisdiction over Burkhart pursuant to New York's
long-arm statute.
There is no support in the record that Burkhart directed any act
at New York to bring it within Section 302(a)(1). Section
302(a)(2) also does not provide the Court with jurisdiction over
Burkhart. The Plaintiffs' Complaint and opposition papers are
also devoid of any allegations that Burkhart knew or should have
known that its alleged participation in the conspiracy would have
effects in New York, or that Burkhart made any efforts to directly
or indirectly serve the New York market. These omissions by
themselves preclude personal jurisdiction under Section
302(a)(3)(ii).
Having found that there is no statutory basis for personal
jurisdiction under New York's long-arm statute, Judge Cogan needs
not consider the next step of analyzing whether jurisdiction
comports with due process. Due process to assert personal
jurisdiction requires that there be a direct connection between
the forum and the specific claims, and here, the Plaintiffs'
submissions fail to make that connection.
Accordingly, Judge Cogan granted Burkhart's motion to dismiss.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Burkhart from this
action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2017 Memorandum Decision
and Order is available at https://is.gd/4Z4N8A from Leagle.com.
In re Rule 45 Subpoena Issued to Strategic Data Marketing, LLC,
represented by Kenneth Bruce Pickle, Jr. --
jradice@radicelawfirm.com -- Radice Law Firm.
Comfort Care Family Dental, P.C., Plaintiff, represented by Brandi
Hamilton -- bhamilton@barrettlawgroup.com -- Barrett Law Group,
P.A., pro hac vice, Eric Cramer -- ecramer@bm.net -- Berger &
Montague, Joshua T. Ripley -- jripley@bm.net -- Berger & Montague,
P.C., Patrick F. Madden -- pmadden@bm.net -- Berger & Montague,
pro hac vice, Ryan F. Stephan, Stephan Zouras LLP, Daniel Evan
Rubenstein, Radice Law Firm, James B. Zouras, Stephan Zouras,
LLP, John W. Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Kenneth Bruce
Pickle, Jr., Radice Law Firm, Teresa Becvar, Stephan Zouras, LLP &
John Daniel Radice, Radice Law Firm, PC.
Rossman Endodontics, Plaintiff, represented by Brandi Hamilton,
Barrett Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice, Eric Cramer, Berger &
Montague, Joshua T. Ripley, Berger & Montague, P.C., Patrick F.
Madden, Berger & Montague, pro hac vice, Ryan F. Stephan, Stephan
Zouras LLP, James B. Zouras, Stephan Zouras, LLP, John D. Barrett,
Barrett Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice, Kenneth Bruce Pickle, Jr.,
Radice Law Firm, Teresa Becvar, Stephan Zouras, LLP & John Daniel
Radice, Radice Law Firm, PC.
Robert W. Grodner, DDS, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J.
Cormier -- ccormier@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Christopher Goodpastor --
jellwanger@dpelaw.com -- DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy, LLP, pro
hac vice, Gabriel R. Gervey, DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy, LLP,
Nicole E. Glauser, DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy, LLP, pro hac
vice, Richard A. Koffman -- rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Sharon Kunjumon
Robertson -- srobertson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., Kenneth Bruce Pickle, Jr., Radice Law
Firm & John Daniel Radice, Radice Law Firm, PC.
Stanford Dresnin, DDS, Plaintiff, represented by Marc H. Edelson,
Edelson & Associates, LLC, Joshua H. Grabar -- jgrabar@bolognese-
law.com -- pro hac vice, Kenneth Bruce Pickle, Jr., Radice Law
Firm & John Daniel Radice, Radice Law Firm, PC.
Bauer Dental Arts, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Michael Purdy,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, John Daniel Radice, Radice Law Firm, PC,
Joseph R. Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- Joshua A. Davis,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Kenneth Bruce Pickle, Jr., Radice
Law Firm & Ryan McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc..
Dr. Robert Corwin, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley J. Demuth --
bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Linda P.
Nussbaum -- lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, PC,
Warren Burns -- wburns@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest LLP, pro
hac vice, Kenneth Bruce Pickle, Jr., Radice Law Firm & John Daniel
Radice, Radice Law Firm, PC.
Keith Schwartz, D.M.D., P.A., Plaintiff, represented by Bradley J.
Demuth, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Eric Cramer, Berger & Montague,
Gary I. Smith, Hausfeld, Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group,
PC, Robert W. Cobbs, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Warren
Burns, Burns Charest LLP, pro hac vice, Jessica Weiner, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Kenneth Bruce Pickle, Jr., Radice
Law Firm & John Daniel Radice, Radice Law Firm, PC.
Dr. Stephen M. Grussmark, DDS, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley
J. Demuth, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum
Law Group, PC, Warren Burns, Burns Charest LLP, pro hac vice,
Kenneth Bruce Pickle, Jr., Radice Law Firm & John Daniel Radice,
Radice Law Firm, PC.
Howard M. May, DDS, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Cramer, Berger
& Montague, Eric H. Gibbs, Gibbs Law Group LLP, pro hac vice, Gary
I. Smith, Hausfeld, George W. Sampson, Sampson Dunlap LLP, Linda
P. Lam, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Marc David Grossman, Sanders Viener
Grossman, LLP, Michael L. Schrag, Gibbs Law Group LLP, pro hac
vice, Robert W. Cobbs, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Jessica
Weiner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Kenneth Bruce Pickle,
Jr., Radice Law Firm & John Daniel Radice, Radice Law Firm, PC.
Henry Schein, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley I. Ruskin --
bruskin@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, Colin Kass --
ckass@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose, David Alexander Munkittrick
-- dmunkittrick@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose, Stephen Robert
Chuk -- schuk@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, Adrian
Fontecilla -- afontecilla@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP,
Barack Echols -- barack.echols@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, pro hac vice, James Andrew Langan --
andrew.langan@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice,
Jaran R. Moten -- jaran.moten@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, pro hac vice, John P. McDonald -- jpmcdonald@lockelord.com --
Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren M. Fincher --
lfincher@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP & Sarah Lancaster --
slancaster@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice.
Patterson Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by James J. Long
-- jlong@briggs.com -- Briggs and Morgan, P.A., Jay William
Schlosser -- jschlosser@briggs.com -- Briggs and Morgan, P.A.,
Michael B. Miller -- mbmiller@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP
& Scott M. Flaherty -- sflaherty@briggs.com -- Briggs and Morgan,
P.A., pro hac vice.
Benco Dental Supply Company, Defendant, represented by Howard D.
Scher -- howard.scher@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC,
Samantha Lee Southall -- samantha.southall@bipc.com -- Buchanan
Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Carrie G. Amezcua --
carrie.amezcua@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, pro hac
vice, David Schumacher -- david.schumacher@bipc.com -- Buchanan
Ingersoll & Rooney PC, pro hac vice, Kenneth L. Racowski --
kenneth.racowski@bipc.com -- Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney PC &
Thomas P. Manning -- thomas.manning@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll
& Rooney PC.
SourceOne Dental, Inc., Interested Party, represented by
Christopher G. Renner -- crenner@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Jack G. Stern -- jstern@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller
& Flexner LLP, James P. Denvir -- jdenvir@bsfllp.com -- Boies
Schiller & Flexner, pro hac vice & William A. Isaacson --
wisaacson@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.
Strategic Data Marketing, Objector, represented by Dustin F.
Hecker -- dhecker@pbl.com -- Posternak Blankstein & Lund, pro hac
vice.
Data Marketing Strategic, Objector, represented by Dustin F.
Hecker, Posternak Blankstein & Lund.
DFC GLOBAL: Settlement in Securities Fraud Suit Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WEST PALM BEACH POLICE PENSION FUND, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
DFC GLOBAL CORP., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 13-6731
(E.D. Pa.), Judge Berlie M. Schiller of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the parties'
motions for final approval of the settlement and plan of
allocation, and attorneys' fees and costs.
On Nov. 20, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint,
alleging that DFC Global and a number of DFC Global executives
carried out a scheme to deceive the investing public through false
statements and material omissions. The Plaintiffs also sought
relief under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
alleging controlling person liability against several executives.
Finally, they brought claims pursuant to the Securities Act of
1933.
On April 9, 2014, the Court appointed as the Lead Plaintiff the
institutional investor group comprised of West Palm Beach Police
Pension Fund, the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, the Macomb
County Employees Retirement System, and the Laborers' District
Council and Contractors' Pension Fund of Ohio. The Court also
approved the Lead Plaintiffs' selection of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP as the co-lead
counsel. On April 22, 2014, this litigation was consolidated with
a related case filed in this District. The Lead Plaintiffs filed
a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on July 21, 2014.
On Oct. 3, 2014, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint, to which the Plaintiffs responded on Dec. 2, 2014. On
June 16, 2015, the Court denied the motions to dismiss, and on
Aug. 3, 2015, the Defendants filed their answers to the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Discovery commenced in July
2015.
On Oct. 2, 2015, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, to which the Defendants responded on Feb. 12, 2016.
On Aug. 4, 2016, the Court granted the motion for class
certification. The parties subsequently engaged in extensive
settlement discussions and reached an agreement.
On March 8, 2017, the Court entered an order that preliminarily
approved the settlement, approved the proposed notice to the
class, and set procedures and deadlines to see the litigation to
its conclusion, should the Court grant final approval of the
settlement.
The parties have moved for final approval of the settlement and
plan of allocation, as well as for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses.
The Class consists of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired common stock issued by DFC Global between Jan.
28, 2011, and Feb. 3, 2014, and were damaged thereby. Included
within the Class are persons or entities who purchased shares of
DFC Global stock on the open market and/or in a registered public
offering on or about April 7, 2011.
In consideration for terminating the litigation and providing
releases to the Defendants, the DFC Global Defendants will pay
$30,000,000 in cash into an escrow account. The cash will be used
to pay authorized claimants, any taxes owed, notice and
administrative costs, litigation expenses authorized by the Court,
and attorneys' fees awarded by the Court. The settlement
agreement further included provisions for notice and settlement
administration. A claims administrator was tasked with
determining the validity of a claim and the pro rata share of the
settlement fund based on the allocation plan proposed in the
notice.
Having reviewed the record before him and the parties'
submissions, Judge Schiller granted the parties' motions for final
approval of the settlement and plan of allocation, and attorneys'
fees and costs.
The Class Counsel is awarded 25% of the settlement fund, or
$7,500,000, in attorneys' fee; and $472,462.44 in costs.
Judge Schiller also awarded Lead Plaintiffs, Arkansas Teachers
Retirement System, Macomb County Employees Retirement System, and
the Laborers' District Council and Contractors' Pension Fund of
Ohio, $5,560, $7,080, and $9,000, respectively.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/xCW2rN from Leagle.com.
ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff, represented by
ANGUS F. NI -- angus.ni@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
GROSSMAN LLP.
ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff, represented by
HANNAH ROSS -- hannah@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
GROSSMANN LLP, JAI CHANDRASEKHAR -- jai@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN
LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, JEFFREY W. GOLAN --
jgolan@barrack.com -- BARRACK RODOS & BACINE, JOHN RIZIO-HAMILTON
-- johnr@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP,
KATHERINE SINDERSON -- katherinem@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN
LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, JEFFREY A. BARRACK --
jbarrack@barrack.com -- BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE & LISA M. PORT --
lport@barrack.com -- BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE.
DFC GLOBAL CORP., Defendant, represented by DAVID WIENER --
dwiener@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER, JAY A. DUBOW --
dubowj@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON, JORDAN ETH --
jeth@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER, JUDSON LOBDELL --
jlobdell@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER, PHILIP T. BESIROF --
pbesirof@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER, RANDALL ZACK, MORRISON &
FOERSTER, ERICA HALL DRESSLER -- dresslere@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER
HAMILTON LLP, GAY BARLOW PARKS RAINVILLE --
rainvilleg@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP & HEDYA ARYANI --
aryanih@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP.
JEFFREY A. WEISS, Defendant, represented by JAY A. DUBOW, PEPPER
HAMILTON, ERICA HALL DRESSLER, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, GAY BARLOW
PARKS RAINVILLE, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP & HEDYA ARYANI, PEPPER
HAMILTON LLP.
RANDY UNDERWOOD, Defendant, represented by JAY A. DUBOW, PEPPER
HAMILTON, ERICA HALL DRESSLER, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, GAY BARLOW
PARKS RAINVILLE, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP & HEDYA ARYANI, PEPPER
HAMILTON LLP.
DAVID JESSICK, Defendant, represented by JAY A. DUBOW, PEPPER
HAMILTON.
KENNETH SCHWENKE, Defendant, represented by JAY A. DUBOW, PEPPER
HAMILTON.
CLIVE KAHN, Defendant, represented by JAY A. DUBOW, PEPPER
HAMILTON.
JOHN GAVIN, Defendant, represented by JAY A. DUBOW, PEPPER
HAMILTON.
RON MCLAUGHLIN, Defendant, represented by JAY A. DUBOW, PEPPER
HAMILTON.
MICHAEL KOOPER, Defendant, represented by JAY A. DUBOW, PEPPER
HAMILTON.
CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, Defendant, represented by
BRADLEY J. BUTWIN -- bbutwin@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP,
JOHN S. SUMMERS -- jsummers@hangley.com -- HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL
& PUDLIN, JONATHAN ROSENBERG -- jrosenberg@omm.com -- O'MELVENY &
MYERS LLP, MOSHE MANDEL -- mmandel@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS
LLP & WILLIAM J. SUSHON -- wsushon@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS
LLP.
NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, represented by
BRADLEY J. BUTWIN, O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, JOHN S. SUMMERS, HANGLEY
ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN, JONATHAN ROSENBERG, O'MELVENY & MYERS
LLP, MOSHE MANDEL, O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP & WILLIAM J. SUSHON,
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP.
WILLIAM M ATHAS, Defendant, represented by JAY A. DUBOW, PEPPER
HAMILTON & GAY BARLOW PARKS RAINVILLE, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP.
INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR GROUP, Movant, represented by JEFFREY A.
BARRACK, BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE, JEFFREY W. GOLAN, BARRACK RODOS
& BACINE, LISA M. PORT, BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE & MARK R. ROSEN --
mrosen@barrack.com -- BARRACK RODOS & BACINE.
DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Wants Subway Soda Tax Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Meisel, writing for Law360, reports that after having the
case moved to Illinois federal court on Sept. 22, the franchiser
of all Subway restaurants in the U.S. asked the court to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction the suit over the alleged misapplication
of the Cook County, Illinois, soda tax to unsweetened tea.
Florida-based Doctor's Associates Inc., which owns all American
Subway restaurants, took aim at the plaintiffs who filed the
putative class action in August, just a few weeks after the
implementation of Cook County's new penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-
sweetened beverages. The suit is one of many filed after the tax
was released from an injunctive order put on the matter in July
while a Cook County judge weighed the merits of several
constitutional questions regarding the tax.
The suit alleges that two named plaintiffs from Illinois and Ohio,
in addition to thousands of other putative class members, were
illegally charged 21 cents extra for their purchases of FUZE Fresh
Brewed Unsweetened Tea, which is served in the same beverage cups
as soda, which is subject to the tax. But Doctor's Associates
Inc. called the plaintiffs on what the company said was a naked
play at litigation.
"Plaintiffs Charles Drake and Mario Aliano -- in an apparent rush
to file lawsuits over the recently-enacted Cook County sweetened
beverage tax -- went to local Subway franchise locations and
purchased fountain cups for the sole purpose of filling them with
unsweetened tea so they could file this putative class action just
a few days later," Doctor's Associates said in its Sept. 22 motion
to dismiss. "Plaintiffs contend they were charged the sweetened
beverage tax on the purchase of their fountain drink cups, and
that they later decided to fill their cups with an unsweetened
drink from a self-service beverage station."
Messrs. Drake and Aliano had alleged in an Aug. 18 suit filed in
Cook County Circuit Court that the point-of-sale system used by
all Subway restaurants was controlled by Doctor's Associates and
that restaurants in Cook County could not reprogram their POS
systems to account for unsweetened beverages. The one-count suit
alleged Doctor's Associates violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Trade Practices Act by charging plaintiffs 21 cents
in sweetened beverage tax for their unsweetened tea.
"Plaintiffs enjoy Subway's food and beverages, including
unsweetened tea, and intend to patronize defendant's stores in
Cook County in the future," the complaint said. "However, due to
the fact that local Subway stores cannot control how the sweetened
beverage tax is applied, plaintiffs are unable to purchase
unsweetened tea at Subway stores without being required to pay an
unlawful sweetened beverage tax."
But Doctor's Associates disputed the plaintiffs' allegations of
lack of local control of POS systems, writing in its motion to
dismiss that the company does not control every restaurant's POS
system, which it said is a theory that "is both entirely
unsupported and belied by common sense."
"At best, plaintiffs contend -- 'on information and belief' --
that [Doctor's Associates] controls the franchisees' point-of-sale
systems and does not permit retail stores to program the system,"
the motion said. "This 'information and belief' pleading,
however, is false. [Doctor's Associates] has no control over
franchisees' pricing of goods, nor does it control franchisees'
imposition, collection and remittance of federal, state or local
taxes. It is each franchisee's responsibility to collect the
requisite taxes in compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations."
In its Sept. 22 notice of removal to federal court, Doctor's
Associates pointed out the cost involved with the injunction the
putative class seeks in its complaint, and again accused the named
plaintiffs of manufacturing the circumstances in order to file a
case.
"[Doctor's Associates] would have to assist franchisees in
developing, testing and implementing physical modifications to
each store in Cook County to relocate the self-serve beverage
station and iced tea carafes such that consumers could no longer
serve themselves -- and thus could no longer, as plaintiffs did
here, request a fountain drink and then change their mind and
select an unsweetened tea after the tax had been imposed,"
Doctor's Associates said. "Such a change would include, but is
not limited to, the following for each of the more than 400 Subway
stores in Cook County: purchase of behind-the-counter beverage
dispenser; purchase of back-room ice machine maker; removal of
current equipment, counter and floor repair; relocation of
electrical, water, drain and soda lines; and purchase of new back
counter for beverage dispenser."
Those costs, Doctor's Associates said, were more than enough to
rise above the $75,000 threshold for removal to federal court.
An attorney for Doctor's Associates declined to comment on
Sept. 25, citing pending litigation. Representatives for the
plaintiffs could not be reached for comment on Sept. 25.
The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas Zimmerman, Sharon Harris,
Matthew De Re, Nickolas Hagman and Maebetty Kirby of Zimmerman Law
Offices PC.
Doctor's Associates is represented by David Almeida --
dalmeida@beneschlaw.com -- Courtney Booth -- cbooth@beneschlaw.com
-- and Mark Eisen -- meisen@beneschlaw.com -- of Benesch
Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff.
The case is Drake et al v. Doctor's Associates, Inc., case number
1:17-cv-06850 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois. [GN]
DUNLAP GARDINER: Faces "Nwaizuzu" Suit in N. Dist. Ga.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dunlap Gardiner
Attorneys at Law, LLP. The case is styled as Peter Nwaizuzu and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dunlap Gardiner
Attorneys at Law, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03850-ELR-JCF
(N.D. Ga., October 2, 2017).
Dunlap Gardiner Attorneys at Law, LLP is a law firm.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
Mason Law Group, LLC - GA
1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30309
Tel: (404) 920-8040
Fax: (404) 920-8039
Email: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Stabenow" Suit in M. Dist. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is styled as Justin Stabenow and Mark Zelakowski, on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Equifax, Inc., a
Foreign Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-02289-CEH-
TBM (M.D. Fla., October 2, 2017).
Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason M. Melton, Esq.
Whittel & Melton
200 Central Ave Ste 400
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Tel: (727) 822-1111
Fax: (727) 898-2001
Email: jason@thefllawfirm.com
- and -
Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
Whittel & Melton
200 Central Ave Ste 400
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Tel: (727) 822-1111
Fax: (727) 898-2001
Email: lechnerj@thefllawfirm.com
EQUIFAX INC: Summit Credit Union Files Class Action in Atlanta
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Kirk, and Mathew Schwartz writing for ISMG, report that a
Wisconsin-based credit union is seeking class-action status for a
lawsuit against credit bureau Equifax, which is already facing
dozens of consumer-focused lawsuits following the company warning
that it had exposed a massive amount of U.S. consumer data in one
of the worst breaches ever seen.
Summit Credit Union filed the lawsuit on Sept. 11 in federal court
in Atlanta, home to Equifax's headquarters.
Among other contentions, the lawsuit accuses Equifax of negligent
business practices by failing to secure its website as well as
violating section 5 of the FTC Act, which concerns unfair or
deceptive business practices.
Equifax says it can't comment on the lawsuit. "We remain focused
on helping our customers, as well as their employees and
consumers, to navigate this situation," says Wyatt Jefferies,
Equifax's senior director of public relations.
Summit, which has 34 branches in Wisconsin, has 162,000 members.
The credit union alleges that the leak of payment card details, as
well as sensitive personal information, means it and other
institutions will have to shoulder the cost of replacing at-risk
payment cards and covering the costs of fraud relating to identity
theft committed using the stolen data.
The lawsuit indicates that as a result of the breach, Summit and
other institutions may have already moved to cancel and reissue
cards to their members and changed or closed some at-risk customer
accounts.
Due to these fraud and card-reissuing costs, Summit's lawsuit says
it's seeking "costs, restitution, damages, and disgorgement in an
amount to be determined at trial." The lawsuit also requests an
injunction from the court "requiring Equifax to use adequate
security measures to protect its websites and computer systems
from attacks by hackers and to prevent future unauthorized access
of consumers' sensitive personal and financial information."
Bungled Breach Response
Equifax announced on Sept. 7 that attackers had exploited a
vulnerability in one of its web applications to steal personal
details on 143 million U.S. consumers. The personal information
included names, birthdates, addresses, Social Security numbers and
in some cases driver's license numbers.
Also exposed were 209,000 payment card details and documents
related to credit disputes that affected 182,000 people.
Later, Equifax said the exposure also affected 400,000 U.K.
consumers and 100,000 Canadian consumers. The FBI has launched a
criminal investigation into the hack itself, while Equifax is
facing investigations by at least 40 state attorneys general,
probes by the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, as well as inquiries from regulators in
Canada and the United Kingdom.
Equifax has been accused of mishandling its breach response in
multiple ways. The company delivered its breach notification
about six weeks after it discovered the intrusion in late July and
began to block attackers' access by patching a well-known
vulnerability in Apache Struts -- an application development
framework.
That means that Equifax had failed to patch the Struts
vulnerability for more than four months after it became public
knowledge in early March, when Apache immediately issued an
updated version of Struts that fixed the flaw (see Equifax's
Colossal Error: Not Patching Apache Struts Flaw).
After an organization discovers it may have been breached, many
security experts say that taking 30 to 45 days to issue a breach
notification is entirely reasonable, because organizations should
ensure they provide affected consumers with precise details of the
problem and the exact steps they can take to protect themselves.
As part of its breach notification, Equifax created a website --
www.equifaxsecurity2017.com -- designed to give consumers
breach-related information. But it was plagued, at least
initially, by technical problems. The site also required
consumers who wanted to see if they were breach victims to enter
part of their Social Security number, which was a questionable
request from the very same organization that had failed to
safeguard such information in the first place.
Equifax's staff also mistakenly directed some U.S. consumers, via
tweets, to a lookalike breach notification site --
securityequifax2017.com -- created by a security researcher to
demonstrate how easy it would be to trick consumers into thinking
they were visiting Equifax's legitimate site (see Equifax's May
Mega-Breach Might Trace to March Hack).
Proving Damages, Fraud Losses
A major difficulty in consumers' class-action lawsuits over data
breaches is that many judges have held that plaintiffs can only
prove "injury" or "harm" if they can demonstrate that a leak from
a specific data breach led to unreimbursed fraud.
Banks, meanwhile, must prove that they faced out-of-pocket costs
as a result of the breach. But proving that the breach led to a
specific case of identity theft or card fraud could be difficult,
because cybercrime marketplaces are awash in sales of personally
identifiable information. It's not a stretch to say that the PII
leaked by Equifax may have already been at large for millions of
the affected U.S consumers. The value of such information for
criminals is that it can be used to perpetrate so-called new
account fraud, in which a fraudster registers accounts or takes
out new lines of credit in someone else's name.
"I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for banks
to attribute any new account or PII-related fraud -- e.g. account
takeover that leverages stolen PII data -- to the Equifax hack,"
says Avivah Litan, a vice president with analyst firm Gartner.
As a result, credit unions and other financial institutions may
very well have to shoulder costs related to the Equifax breach,
she says. And this is what Summit Credit Union contends in its
breach lawsuit, saying that because of the data exposure, there's
"virtually no limit to the amount of fraudulent account openings
financial institutions must face."
"Financial institutions are responsible for all charges to these
fraudulently opened accounts," Summit contends in its lawsuit.
"The losses associated with these newly opened accounts only
increase over time."
MasterCard and Visa May Reimburse Banks
If proving that the Equifax breach led to specific cases of fraud
may be difficult, Summit and other institutions that sign on to
the lawsuit may have better luck with the leak of 209,000 payment
card numbers. Equifax says the breach began in mid-May and ran
through July 30, which gives banks a time frame to potentially
correlate with any spike in card fraud.
Ms. Litan says payment card companies, including MasterCard and
Visa, will reimburse financial institutions' costs relating to
demonstrable fraud and reissuing cards exposed in a breach. The
payment card companies then typically sue breached businesses to
recover such reimbursements.
Target, for example, which lost 40 million payment card details in
late 2013, settled with Visa in 2015 for $67 million for fraud
losses and breach-related expenses. The retailer also later that
year settled with MasterCard and issued banks for $39.4 million.
It's unclear what types of penalties or damages Equifax might face
from any and all banks' and card companies' lawsuits -- never mind
consumer lawsuits and regulatory probes -- meaning that the data
broker cannot yet tally the full financial repercussions it faces
following its massive data breach. [GN]
EQUIFAX INC: City of San Francisco Files Data Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
CBS News reports that Equifax is facing new legal trouble over its
massive security breach. The city of San Francisco is suing the
credit reporting agency over the hack that exposed the personal
information of 143 million Americans. That news follows the
sudden retirement of the company's chief executive on
Sept. 26.
If you're a victim of the Equifax hack, you may be eligible to be
part of a class-action lawsuit, but a startup in San Francisco
says it has a better idea: it'll help you with your own claim by
taking Equifax to small claims court, reports CBS News
correspondent Anna Werner.
Equifax data breach and credit freeze: Beware these 3 scams
Equifax hack victim Devin McGahey is a legal assistant, but even
so, says he found the idea of going to small claims court against
Equifax a little intimidating -- until he found the company
Legalist. Mr. McGahey filed court papers already filled out by the
company which also paid his $90 filing fee.
"I thought that it was unique, I thought it was bold. I thought
it was kind of a good way to shake up the legal industry," said
Legalist co-founder Christian Haigh.
Mr. Haigh and fellow co-founder Eva Shang usually finance lawsuits
on behalf of small businesses and individuals by providing capital
until a case pays off.
"It was incredible to me that a company the size of Equifax could
be so incompetent and negligent with consumers' data," Mr. Haigh
said.
They say Equifax presented a chance to make a statement.
"The message is that big corporations do not have a free hand over
our personal data," Ms. Shang said.
The goal, according to Ms. Shang, is that Equifax is fighting
thousands of lawsuits in small claims court. So Legalist pays the
court fees and if you lose, you don't even have to pay them back.
The catch? If you win, Legalist gets 30 percent of anything won.
But do consumers need to pay for the help?
"If people want to make the choice to file small claims cases,
they can go ahead and do that, they don't need any assistance,"
said Rob Weissman, who heads consumer group Public Citizen.
He says better than small claims are class-action lawsuits against
Equifax, which can be brought on behalf of all victims and force
companies to change.
"Making Equifax do things going forward to do a better job of
protecting its data, so that people don't get subjected to this
kind of injury in the future. Those are the kinds of things that
class actions do and do really well, and they are things that
small claims court or individual cases don't," Mr. Weissman said.
But Legalist continues to sign people up.
"People are starting to realize that they have more power than
they think they do," Ms. Shang said.
Legalist says it's had about a thousand applications so far. CBS
News asked Equifax for response to Legalist's actions. The
company would not comment on any pending litigation and said it's
focused on helping consumers who may have been harmed. [GN]
EROS INT'L: New York Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Eros International Plc ("Eros"), a global company in the Indian
film entertainment industry, on Sept. 25 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York has
dismissed, with prejudice, the putative securities class action
that was originally filed in November 2015 against Eros and
certain of its officers and directors.
Eros previously reported that, on July 14, 2016, the Court-
appointed lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, and
subsequently amended that pleading on October 10, 2016. The
amended complaint alleged that the Company and certain individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Court's Memorandum and Order rejects
both of these claims and does not provide plaintiffs with leave to
amend.
About Eros International Plc
Eros International Plc (NYSE: EROS) -- http://www.erosplc.com--is
a global company in the Indian film entertainment industry that
acquires, co-produces and distributes Indian films across all
available formats such as cinema, television and digital new
media. Eros International Plc became the first Indian media
company to list on the New York Stock Exchange. Eros
International has experience of over three decades in establishing
a global platform for Indian cinema. The Company has an extensive
and growing movie library comprising of over 3,000 films, which
include Hindi, Tamil, and other regional language films. The
company also owns the rapidly growing OTT platform Eros Now. [GN]
FAMILY FITNESS: Faces Class Action Over Cancellation Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
John Agar, writing for Mlive, reports that State Attorney General
Bill Schuette has filed a class-action lawsuit against Family
Fitness for allegedly charging customers hundreds, even thousands,
of dollars when they cancel memberships.
Many customers who canceled said credit reports showed they were
being pursued by a collection agency on Family Fitness' behalf,
Mr. Schuette said.
He filed the lawsuit against the West Michigan-based fitness chain
in Kent County Circuit Court.
"It is my hope that we can reform Family Fitness' business
practices, and get some money back in the pockets of many
consumers," Mr. Schuette said in a statement.
"We will also ask the Court to make sure the credit reports of
Michigan consumers no longer show debts arising from unlawful
conduct by these fitness clubs."
The attorney general said Family Fitness violated several
provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, including:
-- Consumers won drawings for free memberships, only to find
out, when collecting prizes, that there are monthly costs.
-- Those who win drawings are not notified they are subject to
a sales presentation when collecting prizes.
-- Family Fitness misrepresents costs, lengths of contracts and
consumers' rights to cancel.
-- Family Fitness has apparently been telling customers they
must sign new membership agreements to remove earlier debts that
put them into collections.
Mr. Schuette said his office has received 286 consumer complaints
against Family Fitness this year.
Family Fitness Center and Fitzone for Women has 14 fitness clubs
in West Michigan: Allendale, Byron Center, Fremont, Grand Rapids,
Holland, Muskegon, North Muskegon, Norton Shores, Plainwell,
Portage, Sparta, Standale and Wyoming.
The state filed a cease-and- desist order in July regarding what
it contends is an unlawful practice over cancellation fees.
The lawsuit said that telling customers they are responsible for
the entire cost of the membership and personal training when they
try to cancel is an unlawful penalty.
The lawsuit cited several examples, using only first names of
customers:
In March, Emma and her boyfriend, Chad, entered a drawing at a
Grand Rapids restaurant for free travel or a hotel voucher. A
worker at Family Fitness called and said they won a free hotel
stay and free gym membership. When they showed up to collect
their prize, they were told the membership wasn't free, but
discounted and would cost $10.50 a month for sales tax and towel
fee, the lawsuit said.
The Grand Rapids couple signed up for one year. The worker told
them they did not need to read the contract and that they had a
month-to-month agreement, the lawsuit said.
They were also asked to pay a $75 fee to sign up. Their hotel
prize was a $50 voucher that was unavailable to the couple because
they did not sign up for a premium membership, the lawsuit said.
After a friend warned her about alleged problems with the company,
Emma called and asked about the cancellation policy. She said she
was told it would cost $75.
When they received their contract via email, it was for two years,
not one. She emailed June 1 to cancel.
On June 7, they were told they owe $508 on the membership, but
were offered a one-time buyout of $250, the lawsuit said.
The worker, according to the lawsuit, emailed: "I regret to inform
you that you are unable to cancel this membership without a fee,
as you will be breaking a legally binding agreement."
Chad refused to pay. He canceled the credit card he used to sign
up. Other customers shared similar stories, the lawsuit said.
A Portage woman named Melissa won a free membership in 2014. She
declined to extend the membership but signed up for work with a
personal trainer. After five or six sessions, she suffered a knee
injury and needed surgery, the lawsuit said. She called Family
Fitness to cancel because of the injury but was told she could
only be put on a 30-day freeze. She had her bank change her debit
card number to prevent payments to Family Fitness.
Three years later, when she tried to get a loan for a car, two
debts from FamilyFitness showed up on her credit report: one for
$3,704 and another for $1,491 the lawsuit said.
A message left at Family Fitness headquarters was not immediately
returned.
Consumers may file a complaint online by going to Online Consumer
Complaint/Inquiry, or by calling the Consumer Protection Division
Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at 517-373-1140
or 877-765-8388. [GN]
FAMILY FITNESS: Responds to Class Action Over Cancellation Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
WWMT reports that a West Michigan fitness chain is now responding,
after becoming the subject of a class action lawsuit from State
Attorney General Bill Schuette.
It comes after nearly 300 consumer complaints against Family
Fitness this year alone.
The chain -- which has 14 locations in our area -- is accused of
several things, including advertising "free" memberships, but
later charging clients a monthly fee.
Mr. Schuette issued a "cease and desist" order to Family Fitness
in July, after customers complained about sky-high cancellation
fees
.
The lawsuit asks the Kent County Circuit Court to put a stop to
various practices that violate the state's consumer protection
act.
In a statement, Family Fitness says: "Family Fitness Michigan
values the concerns of the Attorney General, Mr. Bill Schuette,
and with his help are making efforts to reform our business
practices and hope to come up with a remedy to satisfy past,
current and future members. Of course, we'll continue to follow
this story on-air and online." [GN]
FIRST POTOMAC: Robins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on Sept. 26
disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of
holders of First Potomac Realty Trust ("First Potomac") (NYSE:FPO)
common stock on August 21, 2017 in connection with the proposed
acquisition of First Potomac by Government Properties Income Trust
("GOV"). This action was filed in the District of Maryland and is
captioned Wooldridge v. First Potomac Realty Trust, et al., No.
17-cv-02845-RDB.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 24, 2017. If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.
The complaint charges First Potomac and its Board of Directors
(the "Board") with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. First Potomac is a self-administered, self-managed real
estate investment trust that focuses on owning, operating,
developing and redeveloping office and business park properties in
the Washington, D.C. region.
On June 27, 2017, First Potomac entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with GOV under which each share of First Potomac common
stock will be exchanged for $11.15 in cash (the "Proposed
Transaction"). The shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction
is expected to occur on September 26, 2017. The complaint alleges
the consideration to be received by First Potomac shareholders is
inadequate in that it contradicts the Company's recent performance
and is inconsistent with management's stated expectations for the
Company's financial future. The $11.15 per share price is below
the Company's June 27, 2017 closing price of $11.35 per share and
below analysts' consensus net asset value ("NAV") of $11.37 per
share.
In addition, the complaint alleges that the Definitive Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy"), filed with the SEC on
August 24, 2017 in connection with the Proposed Transaction,
provides materially incomplete and misleading information about
the Company and the Proposed Transaction in violation of Sec 14(a)
of the 1934 Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Company's financial advisor had performed an NAV analysis
purportedly supporting an opinion that the consideration to be
received by First Potomac shareholders is financially fair. The
Proxy discloses the results of the NAV analysis but omits the key
component of the analysis -- the capitalization rates assumed in
the analysis. This material omission induced First Potomac's
shareholders to rely on the financial advisor's NAV analysis and
the Board's recommendation and accept an offer that is unfair
compared to the actual intrinsic value of the Company.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of holders of First
Potomac common stock on August 21, 2017. The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in
prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving
financial fraud.
Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international investors in securities litigation and portfolio
monitoring. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has
obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in
history. [GN]
FIRST STEP: Bid to Dismiss FAC in "White" FDCPA Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CANDIE WHITE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FIRST STEP GROUP LLC,
DOES 1-10, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02439-
KJM-GGH (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the operative first amended
complaint.
On May 26, 2016, First Step sent White a debt collection letter in
an effort to collect a debt she allegedly owed to Cach, LLC, in
the amount of $17,779.31. In the letter, First Step offered White
three payment options that White could accept as settlement for
the alleged debt.
White alleges the letter excluded several pieces of critical
information. The letter failed to disclose the age of the debt,
that there is a four year statute of limitations that applies to
the debt, and that the debt was time-barred under the applicable
statute of limitations. The letter also failed to explain that
making any payment on the time-barred debt would revive the
statute of limitations and permit a suit against White to recover
the debt in full. White alleges it was First Step's common
practice to send out form debt collection letters to consumers
nationwide in its attempts to collect time-barred debts and to
collect illegal fees and costs in excess of the maximum amount
permitted under the law.
White brings three claims on behalf of a putative class: (i)
violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA") for First Step's use of deceptive language and material
omissions in its debt collection letters; (ii) violations of FDCPA
for First Step's attempted collection of amounts in gross excess
of those permissible by law or the loan agreement; and (iii)
violations of the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("RFDCPA"). The third claim under RFDCPA is wholly
derivative of the first two claims under FDCPA.
First Step moves to dismiss the first amended complaint in its
entirety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim. It argues the debt collection letter
adequately discloses the nature of the time-barred debt and that
the amount First Step sought to collect was merely the amount Cach
reported it was owed.
Judge Mueller finds that the letter failed to disclose that the
debt was time-barred by the four-year statute of limitations
applicable in California. The letter also failed to disclose the
fact that the debt could be revived under California law by a
partial payment, making White subject to suit by Cach if she took
advantage of any one of the payment options offered in the letter.
In sum, White has sufficiently pled multiple theories supporting a
viable claim under the FDCPA. Judge Mueller therefore denied
First Step's motion as to White's first claim.
Judge Mueller also denied dismissal of White's second claim on the
grounds that First Step had no knowledge the debt amount was
incorrect and was entitled to rely on the debt amounts reported to
it by Cach as the owner of the debt. The Judge finds that White
adequately alleges that First Step violated FDCPA when it
attempted to collect an amount far surpassing the original debt.
First Step's indirect invocation of the bona fide error defense
raises several issues of fact, including whether First Step
reasonably relied on representations by the owner of the debt and
whether First Step had adequate procedures to verify the amount of
the debt. In light of these fact-specific inquiries, dismissal of
White's second claim is not warranted at this stage.
The Judge further denied First Step's move to dismiss White's
third claim under California's RFDCPA on the basis that the
underlying FDCPA claims also fail. RFDCPA explicitly incorporates
FDCPA by reference. Because White has adequately alleged claims
under the FDCPA, she also has adequately alleged violations of her
derivative claim under the RFDCPA. Judge Mueller needs not
separately address this claim.
For these reasons, Judge Mueller denied First Step's motion to
dismiss. An answer will be due within 14 days of the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/tWil1O from Leagle.com.
Candie White, Plaintiff, represented by Meghan George, Law Offices
of Todd M. Friedman, PC.
Candie White, Plaintiff, represented by Todd M. Friedman, Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C..
First Step Group LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy P. Johnson
-- tjohnson@johnson-chambers.com -- Law Offices Of Timothy P.
Johnson.
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: Blind People File Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven E. Helland, Esq. -- shelland@fredlaw.com -- of Fredrikson &
Byron PA, in an article for Lexology, wrote that Emanuel Delacruz,
a blind individual, filed a class action lawsuit in Federal
District Court in New York, alleging that Fordham University
discriminates against disabled persons due to an "inaccessible"
website, at www.fordham.edu Delacruz v. Fordham University, Sept
23, 2017, NY U.S. Dist. Ct., South, 1:17-CV-07253.
Highlights of the Complaint
"[B]lind and visually impaired people have the ability to access
websites using keyboards in conjunction with screen access
software that vocalizes the information found on a computer screen
or displays the content on a refreshable Braille display . . .
Unless websites are designed to be read by screen-reading
software, blind and visually-impaired persons are unable to fully
access websites . . ."
"Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and
visually-impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-
readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities and
services Defendant offers to the public on its Website."
ADA and Rehabilitation Act Claims
Delacruz claims that various failures by Fordham involving its
website constitute a violation of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as
well as New York State civil rights laws.
Remedies
For remedies, Delacruz seeks an injunction requiring Fordham to
take all steps necessary to make its website "readily accessible
to and usable by blind individuals," as well as compensatory
damages along with attorney fees.
Additional Information
Class action lawsuits regarding allegedly non-accessible websites
have exploded in the past 24 months. [GN]
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Sept. 26 announced the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who
purchased Frontier Communications Corporation ("Frontier" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: FTR) securities between April 1, 2016, and May
2, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Frontier investors have
60 days from the date of this notice to file a lead plaintiff
motion. To obtain information or participate in the class action,
please visit the Frontier page on our website at
www.glancylaw.com.
Investors suffering losses on their Frontier investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal
rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com.
Frontier provides communications services in the United States,
including broadband, video, and voice services. In April 2016,
Frontier completed the acquisition of the wireline operations of
Verizon Communications, Inc. in California, Texas and Florida (the
"Verizon Acquisition"), for a purchase price of $10.5 billion in
cash and assumed debt. However, according to the complaint filed
in this lawsuit, defendants failed to disclose the
underperformance of the Verizon Acquisition.
Specifically, the complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that
throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements by failing to disclose: (1) that the
Company acquired a substantial number of non-paying accounts as
part of its acquisition of the wireline operations of Verizon
Communications, Inc.; (2) that, as a result, the Company would be
required to increase its reserves, and write off amounts from
accounts receivable associated with the non-paying accounts; and
(3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements
about Frontier's business, operations, and prospects, were false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased shares of Frontier during the Class Period you
may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this
notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you
meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-
9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website
at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
[GN]
HAIMS MOTORS: Faces "Pinto" Suit in S. Dist. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haims Motors Inc.
The case is styled as Felipe Pinto, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Haims Motors Inc. and Oded Haims,
Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-61943-WJZ (S.D. Fla., October 2,
2017).
Haims Motors Inc. operates a car dealership company in Broward
County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
Saenz & Anderson, PLLC
20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 503-5131
Fax: (888) 270-5549
Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
HEALTH INSURANCE: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. ("Health
Insurance Innovations") (NASDAQGM:HIIQ) between March 4, 2016 and
September 11, 2017. You are hereby notified that Levi & Korsinsky
has commenced the class action Kavra v. Health Insurance
Innovations, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:17-cv-02186-EAK-MAP) in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
To get more information go to:
http://www.zlk.com/pslra-sbm/health-insurance-innovations
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-
free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Health Insurance Innovations' application
for a third-party insurance administrators license with the
Florida Office of Insurance Regulation was denied due in part to
material errors and omissions; (2) the Florida Office of Insurance
Regulation's rejection of Health Insurance Innovations'
application for a third-party insurance administrators license
could result in its losing licenses in the other states; (3) said
rejection was substantially harming the Company's ability to
conduct its core business; and (4) as a result, Health Insurance
Innovations' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
If you suffered a loss in Health Insurance Innovations you have
until November 13, 2017 to request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.
The firm's attorneys represent investors in securities litigation,
and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders. [GN]
HOUSTON, TX: Faces Lawsuit Over Backlog of Untested Rape Kits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Garvin, writing for Click2Houston, reports that a rape
victim is filing a class-action lawsuit against the city of
Houston over a backlog of untested rape kits.
The woman claims the city did not test thousands of rape kits, and
she said if the kits had been tested, her assault, and others,
could have been prevented.
"The City of Houston, for years and years, refused to process rape
kits. Rape kits which would have caught serial rapists," said
attorney Randall Kallinen.
The plaintiff wants a jury trial and she is asking that the city
of Houston implement procedures to speed up the testing of
evidence kits.
She also wants to hold a number of former and current mayors and
police chiefs accountable.
A federal civil rights class-action lawsuit filed at the
Bob Casey U.S. Courthouse in downtown Houston was set to be
announced Tuesday, Sept. 26, at City Hall. It targets a host of
past and present Houston city leaders.
The case involves 53-year-old convicted child rapist David Lee
Cooper -- whose criminal record dates back to the 1980s --
including aggravated robbery, kidnapping, unlawful restraint and
sexual assault of a child, for which he is now serving life in
prison.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit said cooper's DNA was in several of
the untested rape kits involving other alleged victims and said if
those kits had been tested -- she believes police could've
arrested Cooper before he assaulted her.
The victim -- Dejenay Beckwith -- in a statement to KPRC said, "I
want Houston to implement procedures for prompt processing of
sexual assault evidence kits so that others do not have to
needlessly endure what I did."
"Too long the police department and the City of Houston lied to
these women and discriminated against them by not testing their
rape kits," said attorney Charles Peckham.
The Houston Forensic Science Center -- which conducts forensic
testing for the city -- said that while they cannot comment on the
lawsuit, they are "keenly aware of the importance of processing
sexual assault evidence in a timely manner. Since taking over
management of the Houston Police Department's forensic operations
in 2014, HFSC has eliminated legacy and incoming backlogs of
sexual assault evidence."
The list of defendants includes Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner,
Police Chief Art Acevedo and several former mayors -- including
Annise Parker, Bill White, and the estate of the late mayor Bob
Lanier.
Also listed as defendants are six former police chiefs. [GN]
INWOOD RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Constantino Vicente-Guerra, on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Inwood Restaurant Corp. d/b/a La Nueva Espana and Juan Jimenez,
Case No. 1:17-cv-07197 (S.D.N.Y., September 21, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC: Union Nonmembers Class Certified
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Greg N. Stivers entered a memorandum opinion and order in
the lawsuit entitled CHERRI BECKHART, et al. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00751-
GNS-CHL (W.D. Ky.), granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
class and appoint class counsel, and denying the Plaintiffs'
motion for oral argument.
The class is defined as:
All union nonmember employees who, at any time since
September 23, 2014, (and while this action is pending), are
or were employed in the Job Family 1A classification and
salary schedule for Jefferson County Public Schools and are,
were or will be required to pay a compulsory fee to
Defendants Jefferson County Association of Educational
Support Personnel, American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees Local 4011 ("Local 4011"), American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
Indiana-Kentucky Organizing Committee 962 ("Council 962"),
and/or American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO pursuant to a compulsory unionism
agreement between Local 4011, Council 962, Jefferson County
Public Schools Board of Education, and Donna M. Hargens,
Superintendent.
Because the Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary to
address the issues raised by the parties, the motion is denied,
Judge Stivers states.
Attorneys Milton L. Chappell, Esq., and Richard L. Masters, Esq.,
are appointed as co-class counsel for the Plaintiffs.
A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qGao6glR
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Milton L. Chappell, Esq.
NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC.
8001 Braddock Road
Springfield, VA 22160
Telephone: (703) 321-8510
Facsimile: (703) 321-9613
E-mail: mlc@nrtw.org
- and -
Richard L. Masters, Esq.
MASTERS, MULLINS & ARRINGTON
1012 S Fourth St.
Louisville, KY 40203
Telephone: (502) 582-2900
Facsimile: (502) 587-0931
JUDICIAL CORRECTION: Bid to Exclude Coon's Expert Report Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GINA KAY RAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
JUDICIAL CORRECTION SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:12-cv-02819-RDP (N.D. Ala.), Judge R. David Proctor of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
Division, has issued a Memorandum Opinion denying Defendant City
of Childersburg's Motion to Exclude Expert Report and Affidavit of
Peter Coon, and granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike and Exclude Defendants' Class
Certification Expert - Brad Bishop.
This is a putative class action suit challenging alleged
constitutional violations committed by the Defendants against
individuals placed on probation by Alabama's municipal courts. In
their Motion for Class Certification (which has been
administratively terminated without prejudice to refiling after
summary judgment proceedings), the Plaintiffs sought to certify a
statewide class of individuals who were assigned by municipal
courts in Alabama to probation with Defendant JCS for the
collection of fines, fees and costs. They also sought to certify
a class action for individuals assigned to JCS that either were
incarcerated or subject to incarceration for failure to pay fines,
fees, and costs without any consideration of their indigency.
The Plaintiffs have identified Peter R. Coons as their class
certification expert. Coons has submitted a lengthy report in
support of the Plaintiffs' efforts to obtain class certification.
Although the Court has administratively terminated the motion for
class certification in this case, the briefing on that motion is
nevertheless instructive. In their responses opposing class
certification, the Defendants challenged the Plaintiffs' requests
for statewide classes by highlighting the distinct factual issues
at play in deciding each class member's Section 1983 claims.
Defendants JCS, Correct Care Solutions, LLC, and CHC Companies,
Inc. identified T. Brad Bishop as a class-certification-stage
expert.
Defendant City of Childersburg filed its Motion to Exclude Expert
Report and Affidavit of Peter Coons and the Plaintiffs filed their
Motion to Strike and Exclude Defendants' Class Certification
Expert - Brad Bishop.
After careful review, Judge Proctor finds that the Plaintiff's
opinion testimony is supported by sufficient facts and data.
While the limited universe of evidence reviewed by Coons may
affect the weight that can be assigned to his commonality opinion,
the Judge finds that it is still due to be admitted for purposes
of the class certification hearing.
As with Defendants' first challenge to Coons' methodology, Judge
Proctor concludes that the lack of statistical comparisons between
different JCS offices or municipal courts is not enough to render
Coons' opinions unreliable. And although he is not excluding
Coons' expert testimony under Rule 702(a) at this time, Judge
Proctor is open to reconsidering whether Coons' testimony is
helpful to ascertaining the class requested by the Plaintiffs in
connection with any later-filed motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs present three arguments for excluding Bishop's
opinion testimony. First, the Plaintiffs claim that Bishop has
presented legal opinions that are improper for a Rule 702 expert
to present. Second, they claim that Bishop has identified no
formal or scientific methodology used to create his opinions.
Third, they assert that Bishop's testimony cannot be admitted
under Rule 702 because his personal experiences as a municipal
judge in Hoover, Alabama are insufficient to support all of the
opinions presented in his expert report.
Judge Proctor concludes he will not exclude Bishop's testimony
about law relating to his personal experiences as a municipal
court judge (i.e., the standards for determining indigency or the
propriety of trying minors for traffic offenses in municipal
court), but he will exclude Bishop's testimony about legal issues
unrelated to his experiences as a municipal court judge (i.e.,
whether a municipal court can lawfully contract with a private
probation company). With regard to the second argument, he
concludes that Bishop's testimony is sufficiently reliable to be
admitted at a class certification hearing. With regard to the
Plaintiff's final argument, the Judge agrees that Bishop has not
identified sufficient facts or data to support some of his
opinions.
In conclusion, Bishop is an expert qualified to testify about his
practices in conducting municipal court proceedings and his
experiences with JCS. If he has personally observed the practices
of other municipal courts, he may testify about those courts as
well. And, this testimony is helpful to the class certification
proceedings because it is being admitted, at a minimum, to
challenge the Plaintiffs' evidence of the commonality amongst
putative class members and the predominance of common factual
issues.
For the reasons explained, Judge Proctor denied the Defendants'
Motion to Exclude Expert Report and Affidavit of Peter Coons. He
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Strike and Exclude Defendants' Class Certification Expert - Brad
Bishop. A separate Order in accordance with his Memorandum
Opinion will be entered.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/NMOFuY from Leagle.com.
Gina Kay Ray, Plaintiff, represented by Maurine C. Evans, THE
EVANS LAW FIRM PC.
Gina Kay Ray, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandria Parrish, THE
EVANS LAW FIRM, Daniel P. Evans, THE EVANS LAW FIRM PC, Erwin
Chemerinsky -- echemerinsky@law.berkeley.edu -- G. Daniel Evans,
THE EVANS LAW FIRM, P.C. & Robert L. Wiggins, Jr. --
rwiggins@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC.
Deuante T. Jews, Plaintiff, represented by Maurine C. Evans, THE
EVANS LAW FIRM PC, Alexandria Parrish, THE EVANS LAW FIRM, Daniel
P. Evans, THE EVANS LAW FIRM PC, Erwin Chemerinsky, G. Daniel
Evans, THE EVANS LAW FIRM, P.C. & Robert L. Wiggins, Jr., WIGGINS
CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC.
Timothy Fugatt, Plaintiff, represented by Maurine C. Evans, THE
EVANS LAW FIRM PC, Alexandria Parrish, THE EVANS LAW FIRM, Daniel
P. Evans, THE EVANS LAW FIRM PC, Erwin Chemerinsky, Robert L.
Wiggins, Jr., WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC & G. Daniel
Evans, THE EVANS LAW FIRM, P.C..
Kristy Fugatt, Plaintiff, represented by Maurine C. Evans, THE
EVANS LAW FIRM PC, Alexandria Parrish, THE EVANS LAW FIRM, Daniel
P. Evans, THE EVANS LAW FIRM PC, Erwin Chemerinsky, Robert L.
Wiggins, Jr., WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC & G. Daniel
Evans, THE EVANS LAW FIRM, P.C..
Judicial Corrections Services Inc, Defendant, represented by Larry
S Logsdon -- llogsdon@wallacejordan.com -- WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF
& BRANDT, LLC, Michael L. Jackson -- mjackson@wallacejordan.com --
WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT, LLC, Wesley Kyle Winborn --
wwinborn@wallacejordan.com -- WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT &
Wilson F. Green -- wgreen@fleenorgreen.com -- FLEENOR & GREEN LLP.
Correctional Healthcare Companies Inc, Defendant, represented by
Larry S Logsdon, WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT, LLC, Michael L.
Jackson, WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT, LLC & Wesley Kyle
Winborn, WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT.
CHC Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Fredrick Lane
Finch, Jr. -- lane.finch@swiftcurrie.com -- Swift Currie & Brian
C. Richardson -- brian.richardson@swiftcurrie.com -- SWIFT CURRIE
MCGHEE & HIERS LLP.
Correct Care Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by Fredrick
Lane Finch, Jr., Swift Currie & Brian C. Richardson, SWIFT CURRIE
MCGHEE & HIERS LLP.
Childersburg, City of, The, Counter Claimant, represented by Will
Hill Tankersley -- WHT@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP, Chase
Tristian Espy -- espy@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP, Edgar R.
Haden -- ehaden@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP, Ginny Willcox
Leavens -- gwillcox@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP, Gregory C.
Cook -- gcook@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP, L. Conrad Anderson
-- canderson@balch.com -- IV, BALCH & BINGHAM LLP & Timothy P.
Donahue -- timdonahue@donahue-associates.com -- DONAHUE &
ASSOCIATES LLC.
Gina Kay Ray, Counter Defendant, represented by Alexandria
Parrish, THE EVANS LAW FIRM, Erwin Chemerinsky, Robert L. Wiggins,
Jr., WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC & G. Daniel Evans, THE
EVANS LAW FIRM, P.C..
Deuante T. Jews, Counter Defendant, represented by Alexandria
Parrish, THE EVANS LAW FIRM, Erwin Chemerinsky, Robert L. Wiggins,
Jr., WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC & G. Daniel Evans, THE
EVANS LAW FIRM, P.C..
Timothy Fugatt, Counter Defendant, represented by Erwin
Chemerinsky, Robert L. Wiggins, Jr., WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN &
PANTAZIS LLC & G. Daniel Evans, THE EVANS LAW FIRM, P.C..
Kristy Fugatt, Counter Defendant, represented by Erwin
Chemerinsky, Robert L. Wiggins, Jr., WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN &
PANTAZIS LLC & G. Daniel Evans, THE EVANS LAW FIRM, P.C..
KC BEAUTY: Faces "Wan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Qiu Ming Wan, on behalf of all other employees similarly situated
v. K. C. Beauty Corp Bloom Spa, d/b/a Bloom Hair and Nails Spa,
Kei Chan Kim, and Mimi Kin, Case No. 1:17-cv-07207 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 21, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Defendants own and operate Bloom Hair and Nails Spa in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jian Hang, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8588
Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com
KISS MY FACE: Seeks Dismissal of False Advertising Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sara McCleary, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that cosmetics
company Kiss My Face (KMF) has filed a motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit that accuses the company of falsely advertising
some of its cosmetics as "natural."
The first amended complaint, filed by Andrew Gasser and later
joined by Noriko Ikeda and Melinda Kelly on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, was filed on June 9 with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The
plaintiffs allege that by marketing some of its body lotion, body
wash and sunscreen products as "natural" despite the presence of
phenoxyethanol and/or ethylhexylglycerin, KMF is guilty of
misleading consumers.
The plaintiffs claim liability, negligent misrepresentation,
breach of the express warranty, unjust enrichment and fraud and
seek injunctive relief.
In the motion to dismiss, filed June 30, the defendant addresses
the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, arguing that they
lack standing.
"To demonstrate standing for injunctive relief, a plaintiff must
demonstrate not just 'past exposure to illegal conduct' but also a
'real and immediate threat of repeated injury going forward,'"
reads the motion.
KMF argues that "plaintiffs must allege an intent to purchase the
product at issue in the lawsuit -- not some different or new
formulation of the product, reformulated to fit his opinion. [A
court in an earlier lawsuit] held it was insufficient for the
plaintiff to allege she would purchase the defendant's product if
the defendant changed the product's formula to remove the
ingredients plaintiff disfavored."
Because the plaintiffs in this case only asserted they would
purchase the product again in the future if the controversial
ingredients were removed, KMF argues that they run no risk of
future injury and therefore lack standing to seek injunctive
relief.
KMF further argues in its motion to dismiss that the complaint "is
a lack of substantiation claim in disguise" due to the flexible
standards surrounding use of the word "natural" in health and
beauty products.
"As acknowledged by the FTC, USDA and FDA, as well as third-party
natural standards, depending on the context, 'natural' conveys
different meanings," argues the motion. "Where the challenged
claims do not involve a threshold (i.e., quantifiable) claim like
'100 percent' or 'all natural,' to be considered a 'natural
cosmetic' is one requiring the marketer to have sufficient
substantiation."
KMF claims that the statements challenged in the lawsuit,
including "nourish naturally with our botanical blends" and "100
percent natural mineral" are both truthful, not misleading, and
refer only to the specific ingredients, not the product as a
whole.
"Thus, KMF does precisely what FTC tells marketers to do . . .
qualify and substantiate," the motion states.
The motion to dismiss further argues that the plaintiffs fail to
allege a plausible deception. Because the relevant statutes for
such a claim require that the alleged misrepresentations could
mislead a reasonable consumer, KMF argues that the plaintiffs'
claims fail this test.
"Plaintiffs glibly contend they and other consumers apparently
believe any use of the word natural is misleading or false if the
product contains even a single synthetic ingredient," argues the
motion. "Thus, under plaintiffs' theory, any use of any
grammatical variation of the word 'natural' would be misleading if
a single ingredient in a product was synthetic."
KMF argues that the general public would not expect a cosmetic
product to contain no synthetic preservatives, particularly given
their expected multi-year shelf life, and therefore this claim
fails.
A hearing for the motion was scheduled for Aug. 24. No decision
has yet been released by the court. [GN]
KONA BREWING: Court Allows False Labeling Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Herbers of Washington Legal Foundation, in an article for
Forbes, wrote that Judge Beth Labson Freeman, who sits on the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (a.k.a. the
"Food Court"), recently ruled on Kona Brewing Company's motion to
dismiss. The suit is one in the larger trend of class actions
against breweries alleging misleading or false labeling and
advertising.
Though the court trimmed the complaint, dismissing several of the
plaintiffs' causes-of-action and requests for relief, it held that
the crux of the allegations could proceed. The result is that,
through strategic pleading, Kona must spend its time and resources
fighting a lawsuit with questionable merits. Judge Freeman
created perverse incentives for future litigants by choosing to
become, in essence, a product-packaging regulator.
The plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Kona,
alleging that the company's Hawaiian-themed packaging motivated
them to purchase, at a higher price than competing products,
Kona's beer. The company's branding strategy included the use of
such alluring phrases as "Liquid Aloha" and "Catch a Wave."
Further, several of the twelve-pack boxes feature a map of the Big
Island, with a star identifying Kona's Hawaiian headquarters and
inviting customers to visit the brewery. However, because all
Kona beer sold in the continental United States was brewed
stateside, not in Hawaii, the plaintiffs' claimed that Kona's
packaging was false and misleading.
The plaintiffs craftily singled out language and images on the
packaging for the six- and twelve- packs of beer, rather than the
individual beer labels themselves. Unlike the external packaging,
the labels specifically identified the five mainland breweries at
which Kona produced all of the beer it sold in the continental
United States. The plaintiffs sought monetary and injunctive
relief.
In its motion to dismiss, Kona argued that its packaging contained
non-actionable puffery and, alternatively, did not confuse the
reasonable consumer. Noting that the two theories were entwined,
the court addressed them together. Under the "reasonable
consumer" test, the plaintiffs could succeed on their claims if
they demonstrated that members of the public are likely to be
deceived by Kona's products.
At the outset, the court noted that such a determination is often
a question of fact best left for trial. Kona pointed the court to
another recent misrepresentation case against a brewer, Dumas v.
Diageo PLC, where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' Red
Stripe Beer misled consumers through its slogan "The Taste of
Jamaica." In Dumas, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss because it held that the slogan was too "vague and
meaningless" to actually mislead consumers into believing the beer
was brewed in Jamaica. [GN]
KOZENY MCCUBBIN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Muldowney, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kozeny, McCubbin & Katz LLP and Trinity
Financial Services, LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-01046-GLS-DEP (N.D.N.Y.,
September 21, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.
Kozeny, McCubbin & Katz LLP operates a law firm in Melville, New
York.
Trinity Financial Services, LLC operates an equity firm based in
Newport Beach, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
SANDERS LAW FIRM, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7600
Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com
LANNETT COMPANY: Judge Dismisses Pennsylvania Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc., on Sept. 26 disclosed that the United
States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
dismissed in its entirety a putative class action lawsuit against
a multitude of generic drug manufacturers including Lannett
alleging claims under Pennsylvania state law for violations of the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law,
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy,
and aiding and abetting.
"We are pleased with the Court's decision to grant the motions to
dismiss the plaintiff's action and believe the ruling supports our
position that the lawsuit was without merit," said Arthur
Bedrosian, chief executive officer of Lannett.
The lawsuit was docketed under Plumbers Local Union No 690 Health
Plans vs. Apotex Corp, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.: 16-
665.
About Lannett Company, Inc.
Founded in 1942 Lannett Company (NYSE: LCI) --
http://www.lannett.com-- develops, manufactures, packages,
markets and distributes generic pharmaceutical products for a wide
range of medical indications. [GN]
MICHIGAN, USA: Dearduff Moves to Certify Class of Prisoners
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JOEY DEARDUFF, BRIAN DENEKA,
MOSSES KIRSCHKE, KIHAIL KIZ, JESSE KNOLTON, JAMES McRAE, REGINALD
PEA, ANTHONY RICHARDSON, BRYANT SLONE, DARRYL J. SMITH, TINA
STOLL, JAMES TAYLOR, STANLEY WILLIAMS; suing individually, and on
behalf of all other similarly situated prisoners v. HEDI
WASHINGTON, Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections
(MDOC); sued in her official capacity, Case No. 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-
MKM (E.D. Mich.), move for class certification as to:
all those prisoners who are initially confined with the
Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) for their first
two years and are not authorized by MDOC's policy to receive
routine dental care or services.
The Plaintiffs contend that they seek class certification for a
proposed Class I, which involves all prisoners incarcerated two
year or less who are denied routine dental care due to the MDOC
policy of prohibiting routine dental care until the prisoner has
been incarcerated more than two years. They argue that this
violates the Eight Amendment because by delaying eligibility for
routine care, MDOC dentists allow dental diseases to progress,
subjecting prisoners to the risk of loss to teeth and tooth
structure, prolonged chewing difficulty, and gratuitous pain.
Copies of the Motion and Support Brief are available for free at:
* http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZUjbbCqL
* http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UPz6Lwqf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel E. Manville, Esq.
DIRECTOR, CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
610 Abbot Road
East Lansing, MI. 48823
Telephone: (517) 336-8088
Facsimile: (517) 336-8089
E-mail: daniel.manville@law.msu.edu
- and -
Robert Gittleman, Esq.
Tracie Gittleman, Esq.
ROBERT GITTLEMAN LAW FIRM, PLC
Farmington Hills Office
31731 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 101E
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Telephone: (248) 737-3600
MISSOURI, USA: Gasca Seeks to Certify Class of Adult Parolees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled STEPHANIE GASCA, et al. v.
ANNE PRECYTHE, Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections,
et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04149-SRB (W.D. Mo.), ask the Court to
certify a class of plaintiffs defined as:
all adult parolees in the state of Missouri who currently
face, or who in the future will face, parole revocation
proceedings.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Q8PIRYA7
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mae C. Quinn, Esq.
Amy E. Breihan, Esq.
RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
AT ST. LOUIS
3115 South Grand Blvd., Suite 300
St. Louis, MO 63118
Telephone: (314) 254-8540
Facsimile: (314) 254-8547
E-mail: mae.quinn@macarthurjustice.org
amy.breihan@macarthurjustice.org
MRS BPO LLC: Faces "Pinyuk" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, L.L.C. The
case is styled as Nataliya Pinyuk, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, L.L.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05751 (E.D.N.Y., October 2, 2017).
MRS BPO is a full service accounts receivable management firm
based in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. The company's unique combination
of experience, technology, and compliance management processes
allows them to provide industry-leading debt recovery solutions
while enhancing their client's brand and reputation.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
MUG SHOT: Arrestees' Publicity-Rights Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glynis Farrell Bergner, writing for Courthouse News Service,
reports that a federal judge ruled on Sept. 26 that a class of
arrestees can sue Mugshots.com on claims that it makes money by
posting embarrassing booking photos online and charging excessive
fees for their removal.
U.S. District Judge Sharon Coleman gave the class the green light
to move ahead on claims that two websites are used for commercial
purposes and not public interest because one advertises services
and links to a sister site that generates revenue by charging fees
to remove arrest photos.
"It is not advertising use in the traditional sense, but
Mugshots.com promotes itself with plaintiffs' likenesses (and
others), by using the embarrassing nature of an arrest to promote
the website, draw consumers, and if it is their photo or likeness,
provide an easy link to removal for a fee. There are no
allegations in the complaint to suggest that any of these
plaintiffs provided consent. Plaintiffs here clearly allege that
defendants are using their likenesses, in the form of arrest
photographs, without their consent to solicit enrollment in the
subscription removal services," Judge Coleman wrote in an 18-page
ruling.
Illinois residents Peter Gabiola and Antonio Hammond and Florida
resident Jimmy Thompson have spent time in jail and say they
discovered their arrest photos and other public information was
posted on Mugshots.com. The three men are the lead plaintiffs in
the class action.
Mr. Gabiola and Hammond are former inmates of the Illinois
Department of Corrections.
Thompson was arrested in 2003 in Orange County, Fla., and detained
for eight days on charges of check fraud. Authorities later
determined they had arrested the wrong Jimmy Thompson and
dismissed the charges.
All three men claim they cannot secure employment because their
photos are posted on Mugshots.com.
They say Mugshots.com provides a link to Unpublisharrest.com, a
fee-based mug shot removal service.
Sahar Sarid and his associates Marc Gary Epstein and Thomas
Keeseed, along with various LLCs, operate both sites from Fort
Lauderdale, Fla., court records show.
According to the original lawsuit, the websites are a single
enterprise and Mr. Sarid concocted a phony sale to a "Michael
Robertson" to hide his ownership of the websites.
Mugshots.com offers a searchable database of arrest records and
mug shots gathered from Department of Corrections websites and
through Freedom of Information Act requests for inmates' records
from government-run websites.
Mr. Sarid allegedly omits from his requests that the information
will be used for commercial purposes and makes no effort to
confirm the of various reports.
Along with arrest photos, Mugshots.com includes links titled "Get
Full Criminal Profile" and "Get Criminal Background Checks."
Part of the website's disclaimer states: "If you were found
guilty; you still may qualify to be unpublished."
In an effort to further profit from website advertisers, Sahid
created Unpublisharrest.com, a "takedown service" that promises to
remove mug shots for a fee, according to the complaint.
The removal service, which does not guarantee updating or
correcting inaccurate records, earns substantially more
advertising revenue than Mugshots.com, the plaintiffs say.
"There are advertisements on Mugshots.com record pages promoting
Unpublisharrest.com and links to a checkout page enumerating the
tiers of pricing for the removal service. In some instances, a
record page on Mugshots.com has as many as three advertisements
for or links to Unpublisharrest.com," Judge Coleman's ruling
states.
Mr. Gabiola claims he lost his job after co-workers discovered his
Mugshots.com photo, which was still available on the site even
though he had completed his sentence.
A representative from the takedown site allegedly told him he
would have to pay $2,000 plus fees to have his image removed, and
$15,000 to have his entire profile deleted.
Mr. Hammond says he is unemployed due to inaccurate information
listed about him on the site.
Another representative tried to charge Mr. Thompson, who is also
jobless, $399 to update his report to show he was falsely
arrested, he claims.
Judge Coleman ruled on Sept. 26 that the website operators'
actions are not protected by the First Amendment because they were
economically motivated, which falls under the U.S. Supreme Court's
definition of commercial speech.
"As pleaded, the use of the arrest photos and records in
conjunction with what appear in the complaint as buttons linking
to a removal service are reasonably construed as proposing a
commercial transaction," she wrote.
But Judge Coleman tossed out the plaintiffs' unfair credit
reporting and RICO claims because the sites are not selling their
information to third parties, nor did they threaten the three men
or try to extort them.
The judge ruled Thompson can pursue claims for violation of
Florida's Right to Publicity Act and Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.
Messrs. Gabiola and Hammond can proceed on allegations of
violation of the Illinois Mugshots Act, and Mr. Gabiola can also
move ahead on his right-of-publicity claims.
Mugshots.com and Unpublisharrest.com remain up and running,
despite having licenses revoked in Florida and Wyoming and lack of
good standing in Delaware.
Both websites call themselves internet-based reputation management
services.
In addition to the Illinois case, a similar lawsuit was filed in
August in Florida by an anonymous chiropractor who claims
Mugshots.com is sullying his reputation by refusing to remove his
arrest photo from its webpage.
That complaint was the first to be brought under a new Florida law
that prohibits mug shot publishers from charging fees for removing
unflattering arrest photos from their websites. [GN]
NEW YORK: Black Detectives File Class Suit Over Promotions Bias
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Bookman, writing for WABC, reports that a federal class
action lawsuit was filed on Sept. 25 on behalf of black detectives
who say they were denied promotions for years within the elite
Intelligence Division of the NYPD.
The detectives -- Jon McCollum, Roland Stephans and the wife of
now-deceased detective Theodore Coleman -- claim the unit's bosses
systematically discriminated against them while promoting less
qualified and less experienced white detectives.
Back in 2011, the three black detectives filed a federal labor
complaint over their assignments to the unit.
After a five-year investigation, the EEOC found last year that the
promotion process stymied black detectives.
But the detectives and their attorneys say nothing was done to
rectify the situation.
The detectives are represented by the law firm of Emery Celli,
Brinkerhoff & Abady LLP and the New York Civil Liberties Union.
[GN]
ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Sept. 26
disclosed that a class action complaint was filed against OneMain
Holding, Inc. (NYSE: OMF). The complaint is brought on behalf of
all purchasers of OneMain Holdings securities between March 3,
2015 and November 7, 2016, for alleged violations of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by OneMain Holdings officers
and directors. OneMain Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides consumer finance and insurance products and services.
View this press release on the firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
http://www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/onemain-
holdings-inc-september-2017
OneMain Accused of Overestimating Projected Income Following
Merger
According to the complaint, on March 3, 2015, Springleaf Holdings,
Inc. entered into a definitive merger agreement to acquire OneMain
Financial Holdings, LLC from CitiFinancial Credit Company, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Citigroup. The combined company was
renamed OneMain Holdings, Inc. Without basis in fact, the company
represented that synergies between the two companies would result
in a combined company that would be significantly more profitable
than either company on its own. On November 13, 2015, Jay N.
Levine, President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of
Springleaf , and later President and CEO of OneMain, predicted a
positive financial outlook, declaring that he expected OneMain to
generate core net income of $830 million to $900 million, or $6.20
to $6.70 per share in 2017. However, the complaint alleges that
OneMain officials omitted material information regarding the
projected net income to be achieved by the company following the
merger.
On November 8, 2016, during a conference call with investors,
OneMain disclosed that it was slashing guidance for full-year 2016
and 2017, with respect to the growth in its loan portfolios and
its preferred measure of earnings. In particular, the company
revealed that it would lower its guidance for its consumer
insurance adjusted earnings per share from $4.20-$4.70 per share
to a range of $3.60-$3.70 per share for 2016, and from $5.60-$6.10
per share to $3.75-$4.00 per share for 2017. Further, the company
stated that it would lower guidance for receivables growth in 2016
from 10-15% to 5% and in 2017 from 10-15% to 5-10%. On this news,
OneMain's share price declined by $10.67 per share, or
approximately 38%, to close at $16.90 per share on November 8,
2016.
OneMain Shareholders Have Legal Options
Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.
Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
shareholder rights law firm. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested. [GN]
ORATOIRE SAINT-JOSEPH: Man Can Pursue Sexual Abuse Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Cherry, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that the Quebec
Court of Appeal delivered a decision on Sept. 26 that will allow a
man to pursue a class-action lawsuit against two Montreal-based
religious organizations. The man alleges he was the victim of
sexual abuse decades ago at the hands of a priest who served at
St. Joseph's Oratory and a religious brother who was his
elementary school teacher.
The decision allows the plaintiff (whose identity is protected by
a publication ban) to pursue legal action against the Oratoire
Saint-Joseph du Mont-Royal (the religious order that runs the
iconic basilica on Mount Royal) and Province Canadienne de la
Congregation de Sainte-Croix, along with a group of roughly 40
people.
The man alleged he was sexually abused, during a period when he
was between eight and 10 years old, by a religious brother at the
school he attended in Montreal during the 1950s and that a priest
at the oratory abused him inside the priest's office while
pretending to hear his confessions. The man alleges he was
sexually abused once or twice a week for a period of two years.
According to the man's claims, he never spoke of sexual assaults
to anyone until 2011, after he saw an episode of Radio-Canada's
Enquete that reported on sexual abuses inflicted on children who
attended College Notre-Dame in Montreal.
The decision gives the man the status to represent all Quebec
residents "who were subjected to sexual abuse by members of the
Province Canadienne de la Congregation de Sainte-Croix, in all
teaching establishments, residences, summer camps or other
locations situated in Quebec, as well as the Oratoire Saint-Joseph
du Mont-Royal." Three schools that have been sued in the past, by
victims who were sexually abused as minors, were excluded from the
Sept. 26 decision.
In November 2013, the plaintiff filed a request to pursue the
class-action lawsuit. In 2015, a Quebec Superior Court Justice
denied the man's request because he was unable to produce "precise
facts" (concerning the other people who claim they were also
abused) as had been done in previous class-action suits filed
against religious orders in Quebec. Lawyers for the congregation
have argued there was no serious investigation of how many people
were allegedly abused by the religious order that ran the school.
The plaintiff argues the composition of the group has nothing to
do with locations, but with the aggressors and their link to the
congregation.
In its 38-page decision, the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled that the
plaintiff has made sufficient arguments to suggest he is acting on
behalf of a group and that it will ultimately be up to the judge
assigned to the case to determine how large the group should be.
The court also ruled that the Oratoire Saint-Joseph du Mont-Royal
can be pursued through a class-action suit because many of the 40
people claim they suffered abuse there similar to what the
plaintiff alleges. One of the three Quebec Court of Appeal judges
who were part of the Sept. 26 decision dissented and does not
agree that Oratoire Saint-Joseph du Mont-Royal should be included
in the class-action lawsuit. [GN]
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Sued in Penn. Over Civil Rights Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Morlok, Adam Novick, and Theodore Lewis, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City of
Philadelphia, Case No. 2:17-cv-04213-MMB (E.D. Penn., September
21, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Civil Rights Act.
City of Philadelphia is the largest city in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean Whalen, Esq.
VINTAGE LAW LLC
6 Coulter Ave., Ste. 1000
Ardmore, PA 19003
Telephone: (484) 416-3207
E-mail: sw@vintage-law.com
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Oct. 27 Oil Spill Case Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bittenbender, writing for SeafoodSource, reports that
fishermen and others in the seafood industry who were affected by
a 2015 oil spill off the California coast are eligible to join a
class-action federal lawsuit against the company responsible for
the incident.
Written notice to seafood workers and businesses identified as
impacted have been sent out, according to lawyers with Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LP. The notice provides details on
the rights of plaintiffs in the class as well as information for
those who wish to opt out of the case. Those seeking to be
excluded must decide by October 27 and can do so online at
PlainsOilSpill.com.
On May 19, 2015, an underground pipeline ruptured and released
about 140,000 gallons of heavy crude oil that spread across the
water, beaches and land near Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara
County. Subsequently, state fish and wildlife officials imposed a
ban on fishing in a nearly 140-square-mile area around the beach
as hundreds of birds, marine mammals, and other sea life were
killed.
Nearly a year after the spill, a grand jury indicted Plains All
American Pipeline, the company which owned the line, and an
employee on 46 charges stemming from the spill and its aftermath.
The class covers fishermen, seafood businesses, and anyone who
purchased fish from commercial interests who fished in the
impacted area, according to Lieff Cabraser.
"The purpose of this lawsuit is to compensate local fisherman,
businesses, and other victims, and to hold Plains accountable for
all the harm it has wrought on the Santa Barbara community," said
Robert Nelson, a partner in Lieff Cabraser's San Francisco office
and one of four lead counsel appointed by U.S. District Judge
Philip Gutierrez.
In a May 2016 statement after the indictment, Plains officials
said they regretted what they called an accidental release and
would work with businesses and others affected to clean up the
spill and compensate for losses. The company also said it would
share lessons learned from the spill with other pipeline companies
to help avoid similar incidents in the future.
The ruptured line has not been in operation since the spill.
However, the company has sought permission to build a new line
that would replace it. Environmentalists have opposed those
efforts, citing the Refugio spill as one of about 240 incidents
the company has had since 2006.
"Letting this spill-prone company rebuild its oil pipelines would
be a recipe for another disaster," said Miyoko Sakashita, director
of the oceans program for the Center for Biological Diversity.
[GN]
REHABCARE GROUP: $25MM Settlement in TCPA Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DAKOTA MEDICAL, INC., a California
corporation doing business as Glenoaks Convalescent Hospital,
Plaintiff, v. REHABCARE GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
CANNON & ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation
doing business as Polaris Group, Defendants, No. 1:14-cv-02081-
DAD-BAM (e.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
Plaintiff's (i) motion for final approval of settlement and
certification of the settlement class; (ii) motion for attorneys'
fees and expenses; and (iii) motion for an incentive payment to be
made to the class representative Dakota Medical.
The Court granted preliminary certification of a class action
settlement in this matter on April 19, 2017. Following the
granting of preliminary approval, the class administrator sent
class settlement notices to almost 13,000 class members starting
on May 10, 2017.
Of those, 10,898 were successfully transmitted, and through
subsequent research and location of mailing addresses, notices
were delivered to 12,489 of the 12,867 class members. Therefore,
over 97% of the class received notification of the settlement. No
class members have objected, and only one has opted out of the
settlement. The settlement administrator declares that, as of the
final report, there were 12,302 class members eligible to receive
a distribution, to be credited with a total of 2,328,003 shares
under the settlement.
On Sept. 7, 2017, the Court held a final fairness hearing. Judge
Drozd granted final approval of the settlement and the
certification of the class described as all persons that were
subscribers of facsimile telephone numbers to which there was a
successful transmission of one or more facsimiles by the
Defendants (or either of them) between July 17, 2010 and Feb. 4,
2014, in broadcasts by WestFax Inc.
C. Darryl Cordero of Payne & Fears LLP is confirmed as the lead
settlement class counsel, and Donald R. Fischbach of Dowling Aaron
and Joel S. Magolnick of Marko & Magolnick P.A. are further
confirmed as the settlement class counsel. Dakota Medical, Inc.
is the representative for this settlement class, and KCC, LLC is
the settlement administrator in this matter.
Settlement administrator KCC is directed to send an additional
deficiency notice to class members entitled to payments of more
than $600 requesting their TINs, and may pay any class members who
fail to respond in annual installments of less than $600 until the
full amount due to each class member is paid.
Within 20 days of service of the Order, the Defendants will
deposit $24,935,000, representing the balance of the $25,000,000
fund not already deposited for notice and settlement
administration costs, in an account established by the settlement
administrator. The settlement administrator has filed a report
setting forth eligible class members and their respective shares
of the settlement. The settlement administrator will distribute
the proceeds of the settlement fund, after deducting its costs,
attorneys' fees and expenses, and incentive payments to the class
members in accordance with the settlement agreement.
The Class counsel's motion for attorneys' fees is granted, Judge
Drozd approved the proposed fee allocation, and $8,333,333 is
awarded from the common fund to class counsel, to be divided as
follows: (i) Dowling Aaron, Inc. will receive 5.19% of the total
fee award, or $432,499.99; (ii) Marko & Magolnick, P.A. will
receive 3.84% of the total fee award, or $319,999.98; (iii) Payne
& Fears LLP will receive 90.97% of the total fee award, or
$7,580,833.03; and (iv) each firm named as the class counsel in
this matter will remit 3.33% of their respective fee awards to
attorney Frank Owen.
The Judge further approved the class counsel's expenses, and the
class counsel are to be awarded the following amounts from the
common fund: (i) Dowling Aaron, Inc. is awarded $4,302.28; (ii)
Marko & Magolnick, P.A. is awarded $9,229.46; (iii) Payne & Fears
LLP is awarded $123,108.80; and (iv) the settlement administrator
is directed to establish an expense reserve from the common fund
of $1,200 to be used to reimburse attorney expenses incurred
during settlement administration, if any, with unused portion
returned to the common fund after the initial distribution.
The settlement administrator is directed to establish a qualified
settlement fund, if any class counsel advises the administrator of
a desire to receive periodic payments in lieu of a lump sum
payment of attorneys' fees.
The judge granted the motion for an incentive payment for the
Plaintiff and class representative Dakota Medical, and is awarded
a $15,000 incentive payment to be paid from the common fund.
The settlement administrator has been paid $22,311 for the costs
of notice and settlement administration through July 31, 2017, and
this sum is approved. The settlement administrator will be paid
an additional amount, not to exceed $94,069 from the common fund
for the costs of settlement administration from Aug. 1, 2017
through the initial distribution and subsequent report to the
Court.
The parties and the settlement administrator will advise the Court
within 21 days following the lapse of the time in which to
negotiate settlement checks set forth in the settlement agreement
whether undistributed funds from this settlement remain, and if
so, whether the parties intend to seek a further distribution to
class members or will move the court for a cy pres distribution.
Judge Drozd directed all parties to abide by the settlement
agreement, including any deadlines or procedures for distribution
included therein, and take all necessary steps to complete and
administer the settlement in accordance therewith.
The Court retains jurisdiction to consider any further
applications arising out of or in connection with the settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/7kZIyQ from Leagle.com.
Dakota Medical, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Donald R.
Fischbach -- dfischbach@dowlingaaron.com -- Dowling Aaron
Incorporated.
Dakota Medical, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Mark D. Kruthers -
- mkruthers@dowlingaaron.com -- Dowling Aaron Incorporated,
Charles Darryl Cordero -- cdc@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears,
Daniel Friedman Lula -- dfl@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears, LLP,
Joel S. Magolnick -- magolnick@mm-pa.com -- Marko & Magolnick,
P.A., pro hac vice, Leilani Elizabeth Livingston --
llj@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears, LLP, Matthew K. Brown --
mkb@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears LLP & Scott Olin Luskin --
sol@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears LLP.
RehabCare Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jon Wilson --
jwilson@broadandcassel.com -- Broad and Cassel, Kimberly Freedman
-- kfreedman@broadandcassel.com -- Broad and Cassel, pro hac vice,
Melissa Jill Gomberg -- mgomberg@broadandcassel.com -- Broad And
Cassel, Oliver W. Wanger -- owanger@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger
Jones Helsley PC & Erin Kristen Kolmansberger --
ekolmansberger@broadandcassel.com -- Broad and Cassel, pro hac
vice.
Cannon & Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel Scott
Kubasak -- dkubasak@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees, David L.
Jordan -- dljordan@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Fletcher Carlton
Alford -- falford@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees LLP & Stephen Albert
Watkins -- WatkinsS@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP.
RESTAURANT DELIVERY: Roberson May Notify Drivers of Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Virginia M. Hernandez Covington granted the Plaintiff's
motion for issuance of notice pursuant to Section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act in the lawsuit captioned DAVID ROBERSON,
Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. RESTAURANT DELIVERY DEVELOPERS, LLC d/b/a DOORSTEP
DELIVERY, Case No. 8:17-cv-00769-VMC-MAP (M.D. Fla.).
The Court directed the Defendant to produce to Mr. Roberson a
complete list of every Doorstep Delivery driver in the nation, who
worked at any time between March 21, 2014, and present by October
5, 2017. The list shall include the known home address, telephone
number, and e-mail address of the delivery drivers.
The Court approves dissemination of class notice via U.S. mail and
via e-mail. The Court rejects Mr. Roberson's proposal of sending
reminders to potential opt-in plaintiffs. Mr. Roberson shall
allow each individual up to 90 days from the date of mailing in
which to return an opt-in consent form to his counsel.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jHzJ4pxS
WEINSTEIN PINSON: Court Certifies Class in "Marquez" FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ERICK MARQUEZ, IRAIDA GARRIGA, formerly
known as IRAIDA ORTIZ, and DORIS RUSSELL, on behalf of plaintiffs
and a class, Plaintiffs, v. WEINSTEIN, PINSON & RILEY, P.S., EVAN
MOSCOV, and EGS FINANCIAL CARE, INC., formerly known as NCO
FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 14 C 739 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification with a modified class
definition.
This litigation arises out of efforts to collect student loan
debts. In late 2013, WPR, on behalf of its client NCO, filed
suits in Illinois state court seeking repayment of student debt
owed by Marquez, Garriga, and Russell. In November 2013, WPR
filed three debt collection complaints against Garriga and Marquez
(who are mother and son) for the recovery of over $75,000 in
unpaid debt. The following month, WPR filed a debt collection
complaint against Russell seeking to recover over $4,000 under her
student loan agreement.
The four complaints are virtually identical and contain language
common for collection cases; they recite the loan agreement and
outstanding principal, and allege the breach of that agreement and
the corresponding damages. Following those allegations, the
complaints include a paragraph ("Paragraph 12") stating that
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a), Marquez, Garriga, and
Russell are informed that the undersigned law firm is acting on
behalf of NCO1 to collect the debt and that the debt referenced in
this suit will be assumed to be valid and correct if not disputed
in whole or in part within 30 days from the date thereof.
The Plaintiffs filed this action in early 2014, claiming that
Paragraph 12 violated Section 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), which bars a debt collector from using
any false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection
with the collection of any debt. They also sought to certify a
class of Illinois consumers against whom the Defendants filed debt
collection complaints that included Paragraph 12. In relief, the
Plaintiffs sought only statutory damages (as well as attorney's
fees and costs) on behalf of themselves and the class as a result
of the statutory violation. None of them asserted a claim for
actual damages.
In October 2015, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' class
complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6) after determining that Paragraph 12 was not misleading
under the FDCPA. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit found Paragraph
12 to have substantially greater potential for confusing
unsophisticated consumers than did this Court. It held that
Paragraph 12 was plainly deceptive and misleading to an
unsophisticated consumer as a matter of law and remanded the case
for further proceedings.
The Plaintiffs now seek to certify their class of Illinois
consumers who were subjected to the same deceptive and misleading
language. Specifically, they wish to certify the class described
as (i) all individuals in Illinois, (ii) against whom WPR filed a
complaint, (iii) containing the language in paragraph 12 of
Appendices A-D in the Second Amended Complaint, (iv) which
complaint was filed on or after Feb. 3, 2013 and prior to Feb. 23,
2014.
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the
commonality, typicality, and adequacy prongs under Rule 23(a), as
well as the predominance and superiority criteria under Rule
23(b)(3). Judge Tharp disagrees and finds that the Plaintiffs
have carried their burden to certify the proposed class.
Nonetheless, he modified the class definition to remove the
reference to "Appendices A-D." In its place, the Judge inserted
the actual language of Paragraph 12 so that the definition need
not reference the Second Amended Complaint.
The class will be defined as (i) all individuals in Illinois; (ii)
against whom WPR filed a complaint; (iii) containing the following
language: Pursuant to 11 [or 15] U.S.C Section 1692g(a), the
Defendants are informed that the undersigned law firm is acting on
behalf of the Plaintiff to collect the debt and that the debt
referenced in this suit will be assumed to be valid and correct if
not disputed in whole or in part within 30 days from the date
thereof; (iv) which complaint was filed on or after Feb. 3, 2013
and prior to Feb. 23, 2014.
Therefore, for these reasons, Judge Tharp granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/4v5UDw from Leagle.com.
Erick Marquez, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman --
dedelman@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC.
Erick Marquez, Plaintiff, represented by Cathleen M. Combs --
ccombs@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC,
James O. Latturner -- jlatturner@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin LLC & Tiffany Nicole Hardy --
thardy@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC.
Iraida Garriga, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cathleen M. Combs,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, James O. Latturner,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC & Tiffany Nicole Hardy,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC.
Doris Russell, Plaintiff, represented by Tiffany Nicole Hardy,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC.
Weinstein, Pinson & Riley, P.S., Defendant, represented by David
M. Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
Justin M. Penn -- jpenn@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson &
Brandon S. Stein, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.
Evan L. Moscov, Defendant, represented by David M. Schultz,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Justin M. Penn, Hinshaw & Culbertson &
Brandon S. Stein -- bstein@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP.
EGS Financial Care, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Kevin
Schultz, Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel LLP, Daniel W. Pisani --
dpisani@sessions.legal -- Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel,
Michael D. Slodov -- mslodov@sessions-law.biz -- Sessions,
Fishman, Nathan & Israel, LLC & Morgan Ian Marcus --
mmarcus@sessions.legal -- Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel, LLC.
SABER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Suber" Suit in M. Dist. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saber Healthcare
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Lori Suber, on her own behalf
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Saber Healthcare
Group, LLC, doing business as: The Crossings of Riverview,
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-02293-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla., October 2,
2017).
The Defendant owns and operates a nursing home and rehabilitation
center.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William John Gadd, Esq.
W. John Gadd, Attorney at Law
2727 Ulmerton Rd, Suite 250
Clearwater, FL 33762
Tel: (727) 524-6300
Fax: (727) 524-6330
Email: wjg@mazgadd.com
SAN BENITO TEXTILE: Faces "Oliva" Suit in S.D. Tex.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against San Benito Textile,
Inc. The case is styled as Maria Luisa Oliva, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. San Benito
Textile, Inc., Dolores Sanchez and Jennifer Sanchez, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00205 (S.D. Tex., October 2, 2017).
San Benito Textile, Inc. is a manufacturer of woven, tufted, and
other carpets and rugs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole Marie Bucheri, Esq.
Texas RioGrande Legal Aid
1206 E Van Buren St
Brownsville, TX 78520
Tel: (956) 982-5540
Email: nbucheri@trla.org
SCANA: Faces Racketeering Class Action in Columbia
--------------------------------------------------
Sammy Fretwell, writing for The State, reports that a lawsuit
filed on Sept. 25 in Columbia alleges that SCANA violated a
federal racketeering statute when it charged customers for the
cost of a multi-billion dollar nuclear project that won't be
completed.
The federal lawsuit, which could result in rebates to customers if
successful, says SCANA and partner Santee Cooper knew the nuclear
project was running off the tracks, but continued to provide an
optimistic view of the effort -- even as customers were billed for
the work.
The suit only names SCANA, an investor owned energy company and
the project's senior partner, as a defendant, but it also
criticizes state-owned Santee Cooper. SCANA is the parent
corporation of SCE&G.
SCANA's use of "false and deceptive testimony, reports, and
reactor projections" induced the state Public Service Commission
to approve rate increases that the regulatory panel would not
otherwise have approved if SCANA had told the truth, the suit
says.
The lawsuit relies in part on a nearly 50-year-old federal
racketeering law that was first used to battle the mafia, but
which has been expanded to allow its use against other
organizations, according to www.hg.org. It is used to show a
pattern of wrongdoing, as is alleged in Columbia attorney
Brian Gambrell's suit.
"These acts have been committed on multiple occasions by SCANA
throughout the state of South Carolina and constitute a pattern of
behavior," the suit says.
The racketeering law often is used in criminal prosecutions, but
can be used in civil lawsuits, according to www.hg.org. Such
civil suits can be expensive to prove, but can be lucrative, the
website reports. Those seeking compensation can get three times
the actual damages incurred. In this case, ratepayers have been
billed about $2 billion for the project.
In this case, when SCE&G sent power bills in the mail, the company
broke the federal racketeering law, the suit said.
SCANA spokesman Eric Boomhower declined comment on the lawsuit.
Mr. Gambrell's lawsuit seeks class action status. If class action
status is granted and the suit is successful, many customers of
both SCE&G and partner Santee Cooper could be entitled to refunds
or breaks on their power bills to compensate for the $2 billion
they've collectively been charged for the nuclear reactor project,
Mr. Gambrell said.
Mr. Gambrell's case is the latest in a growing number of lawsuits
against SCANA over the V.C. Summer project. SCANA and junior
partner Santee Cooper walked away from the project July 31 after
spending nearly a decade on the effort, citing the bankruptcy of
chief contractor Westinghouse and rising costs. Together, the
companies spent about $9 billion over a decade, before quitting.
During the time the project was being planned and built, the
utilities collectively raised rates 14 times to pay for financing
costs, charging customers about $2 billion.
While the suit filed on Sept. 25 is a civil case, it comes as
questions continue about whether criminal wrongdoing occurred as
the project advanced.
A federal grand jury subpoenaed records from SCANA and partner
Santee Cooper and sources confirmed that a criminal investigation
is under way. State Attorney General Alan Wilson also is
investigating and, on Sept. 25, lawmakers asked the State Law
Enforcement Division to look into the failed project.
Questions have surfaced on at least three fronts: whether SCANA
withheld information that it is legally required to report to
federal regulators; why several top SCANA executives sold $3.4
million in stock before a damaging report on the project's
problems became public; and whether some of the project's design
needed authorization from professional engineers.
Now, questions have been raised about violation of a federal
racketeering law in a civil suit.
"It is not in place of or in lieu of what either the U.S. Attorney
or the Grand Jury is going to do, but it is a kind in supplement,"
Mr. Gambrell said. [GN]
SFILATINO LLC: Faces "Zepeda" Suit in S. Dist. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sfilatino LLC. The
case is styled as Jorge Zepeda, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sfilatino LLC doing business as:
Pane & Vino la Trattoria, Angelo Quaglini and Alvaro Rojas,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-23608-RNS (S.D. Fla., October 2,
2017).
Defendants operate a restaurant named Pane & Vino, in Miami-Dade
County, located at 1450 Washington Avenue, Miami Beach,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vanessa Rae Underwood Steelman, Esq.
Saenz and Anderson, PLLC
12600 SW 50th CT Unit 433
Miramar, FL 33027
Tel: (573) 450-5163
Fax: (573) 450-5163
Email: VSteelman@saenzanderson.com
- and -
Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
Saenz & Anderson, PLLC
20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 503-5131
Fax: (888) 270-5549
Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
SHINE CORPORATE: Faces Class Action Over 73% Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Walsh, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that
Shine Corporate faces a $250 million class action claim dating
back to its January 2016 turmoil, when the listed group of law
firms' stock price fell 73 per cent in one day after it confessed
to over-egging recoverable "work in progress" amounts.
Shareholders bringing the action claim Shine knew, or should have
known, the hit to its revenue was coming "well" ahead of that time
and disclosed this to the market earlier.
"It is ironic that a law firm, which claims to specialise in class
actions, would mislead its own investors," said Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan partner Damian Scattini, who is representing
the shareholders in the action.
"Shine claims to be 'always standing up for the little guy'," he
said.
"But its shareholders are the very 'everyday Australians' it
claims to protect."
Filed in the Supreme Court of Queensland on Wednesday and backed
by US litigation funder Regency Funding, the action claims
discrepancies in work in progress recovery rates along with
"business factors", including law changes and competition, meant
the firm knew or should have known of the "material impact" on the
2016 fiscal year results.
Shareholders who bought and held shares between August 27, 2014,
and January 29, 2016 -- the day a 10-day trading halt ended, the
earnings forecast was halved and Shine's shares plummeted by 73
per cent -- and suffered a loss are covered by the action.
Allen Dodd, as trustee for the Dodd Superannuation Fund, is the
lead plaintiff in the case.
In a statement to media, Shine said it was reviewing the documents
and would respond "in due course through the usual process".
"Shine Corporate Ltd has, at all times, met its continuous
disclosure and compliance obligations and will be vigorously
defending this matter," a spokeswoman said.
Slater settlement
Shine is the holding company of "no win, no fee" compensation
claim specialists Shine Lawyers, whose tag line is "right wrong".
It was one of the few firms to follow Slater + Gordon onto the
listed market, entering the ASX in 2013.
Slaters, which has battled even more spectacular turmoil over
excessive work in progress revenue among other business issues,
was the target of its own class action earlier this year.
Initially claiming $250 million, shareholders settled in July for
$36.5 million.
Litigation funder ICP, led by former IMF Bentham boss John Walker,
threatened a lawsuit against Shine this time last year, but
ultimately decided against it.
Shine announced another profit downgrade for the half-year ending
December 31, 2016, and has seen a series of high-profile
departures since, including chief executive Courtney Peterson
resigning that month after just six months in the role. Chief
legal officer Jim Holding, head of HR Melissa Leahy, general
counsel Vicki Clarkson and chief financial officer Daniel Wilkie
are among others to have left.
The share price for Shine Corporate opened at 71õ on Wednesday,
dipping to 59õ in the afternoon within half an hour of the firm
announcing the action to the market, before closing at 62õ. The
announcement about the filing was made at 3:13pm, followed 11
minutes later by the biggest trading volume for the day.
Current managing director Simon Morrison has been with the firm
for almost 30 years, starting in its original small country office
in Toowoomba, Queensland. [GN]
SIMON'S AGENCY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Muldowney" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Muldowney, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Simon's Agency, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-
01057-DNH-DEP (N.D.N.Y., September 21, 2017), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
Simon's Agency, Inc. operates a debt collection agency in Onondaga
County, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
SANDERS LAW FIRM, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7600
Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com
STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Action Over Background Checks
---------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR News, reports that a class action
complaint filed in a federal court in Georgia against Starbucks
Corporation claims the coffeehouse chain allegedly violated
required provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by not
giving job applicants the chance to correct inaccurate information
on their background check reports.
In the complaint filed September 20, 2017, Plaintiff Kevin Wills
claims Defendant Starbucks "willfully violated" the FCRA by taking
adverse employment action against him and others based on a
consumer report without first providing them with a copy of their
reports and a written description of their rights under the FCRA.
FCRA Section 1681b(b)(3)(A) requires that employers taking any
adverse action "based in whole or in part on a consumer report
used for employment purposes" must first provide to the consumer:
(a) a copy of the report, and (b) a description in writing of the
rights of the consumer under the FCRA.
Mr. Wills, a resident of Georgia, applied for a job with Starbucks
at a Buford, Georgia store location in September 2015. He was
hired for the position pending the results of his criminal
background check and -- having no criminal history -- did not
anticipate any problems with his background report.
According to the complaint: "The consumer report provided to
Starbucks included a statement that Kevin W. Willis of Minnesota
had been convicted twice of domestic violence. Plaintiff has
never used the name Kevin Willis and does not spell his name like
Kevin Willis, nor has he ever resided in Minnesota."
Mr. Wills claims the information was erroneously mixed into his
report by "Starbucks background reporting company." Starbucks
then took adverse employment action against Mr. Wills by informing
him over the telephone that the criminal history on his consumer
report disqualified him from working for them.
Days after being orally declined employment, Mr. Wills claims he
received a letter from the background reporting company on behalf
of Starbucks enclosing a copy of his report in violation of FCRA
Section 1681b(b)(3)(A) since a copy of the report should have be
given to him before any adverse action was taken.
A primary reason why employers must "provide the report to the
consumer before taking the adverse action is so the consumer has
time to review the report and dispute information that may be
inaccurate, or discuss the report with the prospective employer
before adverse action is taken," the complaint states.
The lawsuit seeks a Class of U.S. residents who had an adverse
action taken against them by Starbucks based in whole or in part
on a consumer report, and to whom Starbucks did not provide a copy
of the report and a written description of rights at least five
(5) business days before adverse action was taken.
Awards for FCRA violations range from $100 to $1,000 per
violation. The class action complaint is Wills v. Starbucks Corp.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03654, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia is available at
www.esrcheck.com/file/Wills-v-Starbucks_Class-Action-
Complaint.pdf.
Enacted in 1970, the FCRA is federal legislation that promotes the
accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information in the
files of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and protects consumers
from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of inaccurate
information in their background check reports.
[GN]
SYNGENTA AG: Settles GMO Corn Class Action for More Than $1.4BB
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jef Feeley and Margaret Cronin Fisk, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that Syngenta AG agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion to
U.S. farmers who complained that the marketing of the company's
genetically modified corn seeds shut them out of the Chinese
market, according to people familiar with the deal.
The settlement with more than 100,000 farmers was announced on
Sept. 26 in a Minnesota class-action trial. It resolves all
farmers' litigation in the U.S. but doesn't include Canadian
lawsuits, according to Paul Minehart, a Syngenta spokesman.
Mr. Minehart wouldn't confirm the amount of the settlement, saying
the terms will be made public when the deal is presented to a
judge.
The pact resulted from months of negotiations between a four-
lawyer team representing farmers and Syngenta's attorneys,
according to the people familiar, who said they weren't authorized
to speak publicly about the settlement. Syngenta halted the trial
involving about 22,000 Minnesota farmers to announce the deal.
Those farmers were seeking more than $400 million in damages over
their corn losses.
The settlement almost equals the $1.5 billion that Syngenta
generated in net income last year, according to data compiled by
Bloomberg. The Basel, Switzerland-based company racked up $12.8
billion in 2016 total revenue, according to the data.
Syngenta was expected to pay $1 billion to $2 billion to resolve
the corn litigation, Jonas Oxgaard, an analyst at Sanford C.
Bernstein & Co. said in an email on Sept. 26. "It's pretty much
exactly in the midpoint of what I expected," he said. Still, some
plaintiffs' lawyers had been privately saying they hoped to force
the company into a $3 billion resolution of the corn claims.
Syngenta Trial Loss Discussed on Bloomberg Podcast
The accord comes three months after Syngenta lost a $218 million
jury verdict to a class of Kansas farmers, in the first trial over
the corn-contamination claims. Several other trials were pending
as lawyers pursued suits on behalf of hundreds of thousands of
corn growers claiming as much as $13 billion in losses. The
farmers alleged Syngenta caused five years of depressed corn
prices. It's unclear whether the Kansas verdict is covered by the
settlement.
The Minnesota farmers claimed Syngenta, the Swiss agrochemical
giant, rushed its GMO seed to market before getting import
approval from China. In 2013, China stopped taking shipments from
the U.S., calling the corn contaminated. The farmers said
Syngenta misled them on when the Chinese would approve the seed.
Corn prices dived and didn't recover because China found other
sources, the farmers said.
The settlement comes as China National Chemical Corp. is pushing
ahead with its $43 billion acquisition of Syngenta, designed to
transform the state-backed company into the world's biggest
supplier of pesticides and agrochemicals. U.S., Chinese and
European Union regulators have approved the deal, but the buyout
is awaiting a nod from other countries.
Syngenta officials had denied causing harm or damages. Two
droughts in years leading up to the launch of the company's
Viptera seed elevated prices, Syngenta lawyer Mike Brock told
jurors at the Minnesota trial. When Viptera was released, heavy
rains set off a bumper crop in the U.S. "It rained, and when that
happened, the bottom dropped out of the price of corn," he said.
Grain exporters Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. and Cargill Inc. have
accused Syngenta in separate lawsuits of carelessly allowing its
seed to taint U.S. corn, prompting the Chinese rejection. Those
claims aren't covered by the settlement, the company said in its
statement.
The Minnesota case is In re Syngenta Litigation, 27-cv-15-3785,
District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Minneapolis). [GN]
TECH DATA: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida
---------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on Sept. 25 disclosed that on September 21,
2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Tech
Data Corporation (NASDAQ:TECD). The complaint alleges violations
of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is June 1, 2017 through August 31, 2017.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Tech Data
Corporation shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above. You may move the Court no later than Friday, November 24,
2017 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However,
in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:
Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com
Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com
[GN]
TRANSDIGM GROUP: Class Period Extended in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in TransDigm
Group Incorporated (NYSE:TDG) to the expanded class period in the
pending securities class action. The new Class Period is May 10,
2016 to March 21, 2017. The Lead Plaintiff deadline is October
10, 2017.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired securities of TransDigm
between May 10, 2016 and March 21, 2017 and suffered losses
contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. For more information
visit:
https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/TDG
or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation,
by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing TDG@hbsslaw.com.
On January 20, 2017, Citron Research published a report entitled
"Could TransDigm be the Valeant of the Aerospace Industry?" The
report accuses TransDigm of price gouging the U.S. Government.
According to Citron, the Company acquires airplane parts
companies, proceeds to fire the employees of the newly acquired
companies, and egregiously raises prices of products produced by
the acquired companies.
This news drove the price of TransDigm shares down $24.86, or over
9.8%, to close at $226.90 per share on January 20, 2017.
Subsequently, on March 20, 2017, Congressman Ro Khanna requested
the Acting Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Defense to
investigate TransDigm's business practices. This news drove the
price of TransDigm shares down $13.15, or approximately 5.5%, to
close at $224.79 on March 21, 2017.
More recently, on June 12, 2017, CNBC reported that Senator
Elizabeth Warren similarly called for a Federal investigation into
TransDigm's business with the Federal government. This news
drove the price of TransDigm shares down approximately 3% to close
at $262.78 that day.
"TransDigm's transparency when dealing with the Federal government
and with its investors is certainly material to both constituents.
We're focused on whether the Federal investigation will commence
and on prior TransDigm financial disclosures to its investors,"
said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
TransDigm should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new SEC whistleblower program, whistleblowers who
provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30
percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more
information, call Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email
TDG@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a national investor-
rights law firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington with 11
offices across the country. The Firm represents investors,
whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. [GN]
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Judge Stays FLSA Suit Pending SCOTUS Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zack Needles, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
federal judge in Pennsylvania has stayed a Fair Labor Standards
Act suit against U-Haul International and its subsidiaries until
the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling in a trio of cases over the
enforceability of workplace arbitration agreements that ban class
actions.
Arguments in those cases -- National Labor Relations Board v.
Murphy Oil USA, Epic Systems v. Lewis and Ernst & Young v. Morris
-- are scheduled to take place Oct. 2. U.S. District Judge Joseph
F. Leeson Jr. of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania gave the
parties in the U-Haul litigation 20 days from the date on which
the Supreme Court issues an opinion to file additional briefing.
In the meantime, Judge Leeson also gave the parties in Kauffman v.
U-Haul International until Oct. 14 to file briefs on two
additional issues: (1) whether the agreement at issue in the case
is a "'contract of employment'" under the Federal Arbitration Act
and (2), if not, whether the arbitration provision can be enforced
under state law.
Judge Leeson's order, issued Sept. 22, came nearly two months
after the U-Haul defendants filed a notice of the Supreme Court's
grant of certiorari in the three class action waiver cases.
The putative class action complaint in Kauffman was filed in
August 2016. Plaintiff Michael Kauffman alleged U-Haul
misclassifies employees of its moving services as independent
contractors.
"Notwithstanding that U-Haul misclassified plaintiff and class
members as independent contractors, they were employees of U-Haul,
in that U-Haul directly and indirectly managed and controlled all
aspects of their employment -- from, inter alia, the employee
application process, to work assignments, to training and
guidelines for the performance of work, to the evaluation of
completed work, to the amount and payment of wages for work
performed (including unilateral deductions imposed by U-Haul), and
to disciplinary action," the complaint alleged.
Kauffman also alleged U-Haul failed to pay its movers overtime
despite the fact that they regularly worked more than 40 hours in
a week.
The suit named U-Haul International and related entities
Collegeboxes and eMove as defendants. It alleged unjust
enrichment and violations of the FLSA, the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
The defendants responded with a motion to compel arbitration last
October.
According to that motion, Kauffman worked for eMove as a "moving
helper" and was therefore subject to the "eMove Moving Help-Moving
Helper Agreement," which required him to arbitrate his claims.
"The eMove agreement contains a broad arbitration clause,
mandating arbitration of 'any and all disputes, lawsuits, legal
controversies, legal actions or legal claims . . . arising out of
or relating to this agreement,'" the defendants said in their
motion to compel. "The crux of plaintiff's factual allegations
against defendants is that plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per
week, but was never paid overtime. The amount of hours that
plaintiff (or any other moving helper) worked and the terms of
payment applicable to the moving helpers are set forth exclusively
in the eMove agreement."
Kauffman's attorney, Natalie Finkelman Bennett of Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah in Media, could not be reached for
comment. Nor could defense counsel Kathleen Mcleod Caminiti of
Fisher & Phillips in Murray Hill, New Jersey. [GN]
UBER: San Antonio Drivers Plan to Join Class Suit Over Low Fares
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Selcraig, writing for San Antonio Express-News, reports that
upset Uber drivers in San Antonio are saying the online ride-
hailing pioneer has created a below-market per-mile fare structure
that so drastically undercuts conventional taxis that they must
work 60- to 70-hour weeks to make a living wage.
Some of the angriest are promising they will organize a boycott,
start negotiating separate fees with customers -- for carrying
luggage or providing child seats, perhaps -- or join a growing
class-action lawsuit community of Uber drivers from North Carolina
to Oregon and Texas.
Waiting outside San Antonio International Airport on Sept. 22,
Uber driver Charles Williams, 47, said the company dropped its
local fares in January 2016 and promised drivers the old fares
would be restored if the change did not dramatically increase
ridership.
"Well, that huge increase in riders never really happened," said
Mr. Williams, who has driven for Uber for more than two years.
"But they've kept the low rates, increased their cut and installed
a new booking fee on customers without letting us share in that."
On its online application, Uber offers three levels of service
called X, XL and Select. Mr. Williams said when he started with
Uber, his share of the service's most common level of ride -- the
"X" level -- was $1.35 per mile, but 21 months ago that was
dropped to 90 cents per mile. At that rate, he said, he was
working 65 to 87 hours a week to make what he once did with just
modest overtime.
"Some of the new drivers came in after the fare reduction,"
Mr. Williams said. "So they don't really know anything different
and just accept what they're given."
Travis Considine, communications manager for Uber Texas, said on
Sept. 25 and in a follow-up email that fares for San Antonio
riders did experience a small increase of "about 4 to 6 cents per
mile" on June 20 to pay for driver injury protection insurance.
The company since July has been rolling out "new ways for driver-
partners to earn on the platform . . . such as tipping, earnings
for returning lost items, earnings for wait time, new cancellation
fee structure, and more," he said.
He suggested that a driver actually working 60-65 hours per week
would be making $15 to $25 an hour, and though ride-sharing is a
different industry from taxis, "I doubt anyone at Yellow Cab is
making that."
At the heart of the drivers' complaints is an ongoing dispute in
American labor as to what constitutes an independent contractor
rather than a company employee. Hundreds of thousands of workers,
from strippers to oil field roughnecks, claim that companies
dictate virtually everything they do, but wrongly classify them as
contract workers in order to avoid providing them with benefits
and paying them overtime.
The courts have seen it both ways.
In July, a judge in North Carolina granted a group of Uber drivers
conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
while a judge in Florida denied a similar claim. In California,
New York and Oregon, Uber drivers have been declared employees
deserving of unemployment compensation. A federal class-action
lawsuit filed in June in Houston portrays Uber as having a
vicelike grip on their "independent" drivers.
Uber officials have said their drivers are contract workers
because they, for example, set their own hours, drive their own
cars and determine whom they will or won't pick up.
"But if you're truly independent, you can set your own rates,"
said Ron Brown, a truck driver for 18 years and Uber driver in San
Antonio for almost a year. "Clearly we do not."
Mr. Brown said he works 50 to 60 hours a week to make roughly $900
to $1,500, out of which he pays for gasoline, tires, car washes
and maintenance.
San Antonio driver James Vessels said he would like to start
charging his Uber customers $5 per bag or a similar fee for child
car seats, but that if these ad hoc fees offended enough riders
their bad ratings could get him deactivated as an Uber driver.
"Uber tracks every move that a driver makes," Houston lawyer Kevin
Michaels told the Houston Chronicle. "As long as they are on the
app, they are under Uber's control."
The Houston lawsuit disputes the company's promotional materials
that claim drivers can earn $100,000 annually.
A driver would have to devote "an exorbitant number of hours on a
daily, weekly and monthly basis to even approach gross fares
totaling this amount, much less earn this amount," the lawsuit
states. "Uber knew such statements were fraudulent and
misleading." [GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Investors File Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Kartikay Mehrotra, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. and former Chief Executive Officer Travis
Kalanick were accused in a lawsuit of covering up a series of
"illicit business tactics" while raising funds, leading to
billions of dollars in losses for the ride-hailing giant's
investors.
The startup and its ex-CEO failed to reveal at least six instances
of malfeasance while "successfully soliciting billions of dollars
in private investment," according to a complaint filed on Sept. 26
as a class action in San Francisco federal court.
A trade-secrets lawsuit by Waymo, a federal foreign bribery probe
and fall-out from sexual harassment allegations are among the
legal woes that have depressed shareholders' investments in the
company by 15 percent, according to the complaint.
"The company's vaunted corporate culture was revealed to in truth
consist of a toxic hotbed of misogyny, sexual discrimination, and
disregard for the law that threatened the company's reputation,
business and prospects," according to the complaint filed on
behalf of a Texas city's firefighter pension fund by Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, one of the nation's leading securities
class-action firms.
The lawsuit adds to the wave of litigation against Uber that
continues to spill over from the Kalanick regime onto newly
appointed CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. Uber is in arbitration over a
complaint filed by investors at Benchmark, which accused Kalanick
of duping the firm to gain control of three board seats.
The "pervasive pattern of unlawful behavior" at Uber forced
Kalanick to resign as CEO in June, resulting in an exodus of high-
level employees at the company and "impairing its business,
operations and prospects," according to the complaint. Among
those who've left Uber this year were the company's president and
the heads of business, communications, engineering and self-
driving cars.
The case is Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund v. Uber
Technologies Inc., 17-cv-05558, U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California (San Francisco). [GN]
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, on Sept. 25 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. ("Ubiquiti"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: UBNT) and certain of its officers and
directors for violations of the federal securities laws.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ubiquiti securities between
September 28, 2012 and September 18, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period") and have questions about your legal rights or possess
information relevant to this lawsuit, please contact attorney
Bradley Vettraino at (617) 398-5600, by email at
bradley@blockesq.com, or by visiting www.blockesq.com/ubnt.
On September 18, 2017, Citron Research issued a report entitled
"Cintron Exposes Ubiquiti Networks," in which Citron detailed a
series of "alarming red flags," indicating that the Company has
been deceiving investors and is engaged in "corporate fraud,"
including, among other things, that the Company has misrepresented
the size of its purported "Ubiquiti Community", as well as its
levels of accounts receivable, among other things.
On this news, Ubiquiti's share price fell nearly 8% to close at
$50.62 on September 18, 2017.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) the number of the
Company's purported user community was drastically overstated;
(ii) that it had exaggerated its publicly reported accounts
receivable; and (iii) that as a result of the foregoing,
Ubiquiti's publicly disseminated financial statements were
materially false and misleading.
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than November 24, 2017. As a member of the class, you
may seek to file a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no
action and remain an absent class member. If you wish to become
involved in the litigation or have questions about your legal
rights, please contact attorney Bradley Vettraino at (617) 398-
5600, by email bradley@blockesq.com, or by visiting
www.blockesq.com/ubnt.
Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with information
relevant to this investigation is assured.
Block & Leviton LLP -- http://www.blockesq.com-- is a Boston-
based law firm representing investors nationwide. The firm's
lawyers have collectively been prosecuting securities cases on
behalf of individual and institutional investors for over 50
years, and have recovered billions of dollars on their behalf.
Block & Leviton's investigations into corporate wrongdoing were
recently covered by the New York Times.
The lawsuit is pending in the Southern District of New York and is
captioned Gericke v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 1:17-cv-
07279. The courthouse is located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007.
This notice may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]
ULLIANCE INC: Lucas's Motion to Certify Class Held in Abeyance
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Arthur J. Tarnow entered an order in the lawsuit titled
CAROL LUCAS, ET AL. v. ULLIANCE, INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:15-cv-
10337-AJT-RSW (E.D. Mich.), holding in abeyance and
administratively closing the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.
The Motion to Certify Class is held in abeyance, pending the
Court's decision on the Defendants' Second Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings or Alternatively for Summary Judgment, and their
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative, Motion
for Summary Judgment.
Judge Tarnow rules that the parties may file the appropriate
motion to reopen the class certification motion after the Court
decides on the Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings
or in the alternative, for summary judgment. Judge Tarnow also
rules that the parties must timely notify the Court should they
need additional time to provide supplemental briefing on
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZlfyV5FP
UNITED STATES: Must Face Class Action Over PACER Doc Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Dave Simpson and Matthew Perlman, writing for Law360, report that
a Florida federal judge refused to dismiss a putative class action
brought against the federal government by an attorney who claims
that PACER, the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system,
improperly charges users for viewing judges' opinions, ruling that
breach of contract claims were properly pled.
U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. declined to weigh in on
the government's argument that the agreements clicked by users
when they sign up for PACER do not qualify as contractually
binding, ruling that it's too early in the case to make such a
determination.
"The government is effectively asking the court to conclude that
the clickwrap agreement at issue did not create contractual
obligations on the part of the government," Judge Scola said. "But
such a conclusion requires the court to interpret the agreement,
which the court will not do at the motion to dismiss stage."
Rather, he said, the court might be able to make that call during
the motion for summary judgment stage.
In a suit filed in November, Fort Lauderdale litigator
Theodore D'Apuzzo said that federal appellate, district and
bankruptcy courts must provide free access to the substance of all
written opinions under the E-Government Act of 2002. He says the
problem with PACER is that individual judges and their staff are
responsible for designating documents as "judicial opinions,"
which he said results in inconsistencies and users having to
improperly pay for access.
He points to several documents for which he says PACER wrongly
charges, including a 29-page opinion granting a motion to dismiss
from the bankruptcy court in the Eastern District of Michigan, a
memorandum opinion and order from the District of Columbia and
opinions from the Southern District of Ohio and the Middle
District of Florida. Each of the documents is referred to
specifically as an opinion but is not made available for free,
according to the suit.
Mr. D'Apuzzo hopes to represent a class of PACER users who paid to
access a document constituting a judicial opinion in the system
within the last six years.
On Sept. 25, Judge Scola also rejected the government's argument
that he should dismiss Mr. D'Apuzzo's implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing claim. Two of the government's three
arguments against this claim are based on an assertion that
Mr. D'Apuzzo has not sufficiently alleged the existence of a
contract, which Judge Scola rejected for the same reason he
rejected the motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim. He
disagreed with the government's third argument that these claims
are duplicative.
"The breach of contract claim focuses on the government's charging
D'Apuzzo for access to judicial opinions in direct contravention
to the PACER contract's terms," he said. "The breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing focuses on the
government's failure to adequately exercise the discretion
afforded it under the PACER contract to insure proper designation
of judicial opinions as such."
Finally, Judge Scola rejected the government's argument that
Mr. D'Apuzzo's illegal exaction claim should be dismissed. The
government had argued that the attorney failed to allege the fees
he paid for access to opinions were improperly paid.
"The entire premise of D'Apuzzo's case is that he was improperly
charged a fee to access judicial opinions that should have been
provided free of charge," Judge Scola said. "Therefore, D'Apuzzo
has sufficiently alleged that the government illegally overcharged
him contrary to PACER's governing statutes and policies and his
complaint states a claim for illegal exaction."
Mr. D'Apuzzo is represented by Nicole W. Giuliano of Giuliano Law
PA.
The government is represented by Alicia H. Welch of the U.S.
Department of Justice.
The case is Theodore D'Apuzzo PA et al. v. U.S., Case No.
0:16-cv-62769 (S.D. Fla.). The case is assigned to Judge Robert
N. Scola, Jr. The case was filed November 22, 2016. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Class Action Filed to Halt Indonesian Deportations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judi Currie, writing for Fosters, reports that attorneys
representing local Indonesian Christians facing deportation were
set to go before a judge in Boston on Sept. 26.
About 70 members of the local Indonesian immigrant community fled
religious persecution but were denied asylum in the United States.
The first of the families, a couple from Somersworth, was expected
to leave the United States by Sept. 27.
They have been under orders of supervision and have been allowed
to stay, some for 20 years, many now have children born in the
United States.
Over the past few months, as they have been reporting in to the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office, they have been
told to buy airline tickets to return to Indonesia.
There was a hearing scheduled for Sept. 26 before a federal judge
in U.S. District Court in Boston.
According to attorney Dan Deane at Nixon Peabody LLP, with offices
in Boston and Manchester, they have filed a class-action
complaint, a motion for a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction.
"What we want to do is stop the government from going any
further," Mr. Deane said. "We are trying to hit the pause button."
Mr. Deane said his firm was brought on as class counsel to the
Indonesian Christians who have faced persecution; particularly the
ones who have gone under ICE supervision and have been complying
with the rules.
"We are not seeking to litigate their individual immigration
cases," Mr. Deane said. "We are simply trying to hit the pause
button to prevent ICE from deporting these people; before they
have had a chance to raise some new arguments.
He said they have a decent argument that conditions in Indonesia
have worsened for Christians and they have a higher fear of being
persecuted if they return to Indonesia than when their cases were
originally decided.
According to Mr. Deane they are asking the court to stay the
deportations to give the families time to file motions to reopen
their cases so that they can bring evidence to the court.
There are various arguments they can make. He said some have
legal counsel, some don't and it will take them time to go back
and get their original case files when they were turned down for
asylum.
"Our goal is to give that time to the entire class," Mr. Deane
said.
On Sept. 26 there would be a hearing on the temporary restraining
order with the minimum relief of 14 days and if they succeed there
will probably be another hearing in a few weeks, Deane said.
He said they have received some indication that people are not
supposed to be moved (removed from the United States) without
giving the court 48-hour notice, which could halt the deportations
that were scheduled to take place on Sept. 27.
Mr. Deane said attorney Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero would lead the
case on Sept. 26, joined by himself and attorney Nathan Warecki.
[GN]
VEON LTD: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on September 19, 2017, Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
allowed a putative securities fraud class action to proceed
against VEON Ltd. ("VEON"), a telecommunications company formerly
known as VimpelCom, and several of its current and former
executives, denying in large part the company's motion to dismiss.
In re VEON Ltd. Sec. Litig., 15-cv-08672 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19,
2017). Plaintiffs brought claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") asserting
that VEON's failure to disclose in its SEC filings its admitted
bribery scheme in Uzbekistan made the company's statements about
its growth materially misleading. While VEON argued that
plaintiffs' claims were an impermissible attempt to enforce the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 ("FCPA"), for which there is
no private right of action, the Court disagreed, holding that
plaintiffs' allegations were sufficiently distinct and sufficient
to plead violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.
In February 2016, VEON entered a deferred prosecution agreement
("DPA") with the United States Department of Justice, pleading
guilty to various provisions of the FCPA. Plaintiffs alleged that
VEON, in the DPA, admitted to bribing the Uzbek President's
daughter in order to garner favorable treatment as the company
entered the Uzbek telecommunications market, and also admitted
that the company had failed to implement and enforce adequate
internal accounting controls, lacked a process for reviewing and
identifying conflicts of interest, and did not have a fully
operational compliance function until 2013. Plaintiffs alleged
that the conduct that formed the basis of VEON's FCPA violations
led to material misstatements and omissions in its SEC filings
during the relevant time period. In particular, while plaintiffs
did not take issue with the accuracy of the financial numbers
reported by VEON, they argued that VEON's reference to the
increase in its broadband subscriptions, including in Uzbekistan,
and the increase in its revenue more generally, required it to
report that these increases were the results of the bribes paid,
at least in part, because the company had put the cause of its
financial success at issue. Plaintiffs also identified
disclosures in VEON's annual reports concerning its internal
controls that were allegedly inaccurate, as well as certifications
signed by its executives pursuant to the Sarbanes Oxley Act of
2002, attesting that the information in the company's Forms 20-F
was accurate.
In largely denying VEON's motion to dismiss, the Court first
addressed the issue of material misrepresentations and omissions.
It held that statements that placed the source of the company's
revenues "at issue" (in other words, statements about increased
subscriptions in Uzbekistan and increased revenue) were actionable
misstatements, but held that pure statements of financial
performance are not actionable unless the figures provided are
alleged to be false. For example, VEON's statement that its sales
and marketing efforts in Uzbekistan resulted in increased
subscribers and revenues, without disclosure of its bribery
scheme, made those and similar statements actionable. By way of
example, the company attributed its year-over-year growth rate of
sales in Uzbekistan to "the improving macroeconomic situation,
product quality and efficient sales and marketing efforts."
Further, concerning alleged misstatements regarding the
governmental authorities in Uzbekistan, while the Court held that
general disclosures about the relevant oversight bodies were non-
actionable, true statements, it held that in light of the
company's bribes, its statement that "all owners of
telecommunication networks have equal rights and enjoy equal
protection guaranteed by the law" was materially misleading and
actionable. In addition, the Court held that certain of VEON's
statements about its internal controls were actionable because
plaintiffs alleged that those statements regarding the "existence
and efficacy" of those controls were false, including that, based
on VEON's own admissions in the DPA, company management knowingly
failed to implement adequate controls governing due diligence,
contract approval, and internal audit, and, at the time, was aware
that its internal controls were ineffective. Moreover, the Court
concluded that many of the alleged misstatements concerning VEON's
internal controls "are backward, not forward, looking," and as a
result were not protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor and the
"bespeaks caution" doctrine. Notably, however, the Court found
that to the extent plaintiffs' claim is based on the failure to
follow internal controls, without more, that aspect of the claim
is dismissed because it constitutes "mismanagement" rather than
giving rise to a Section 10(b) claim.
The Court separately held that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged
scienter on the part of the VEON executives, such that their
intent could be attributed to the company. The Court reasoned
that plaintiffs alleged facts "constituting strong circumstantial
evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness by VEON,"
through VEON's admissions in the DPA, including the admissions of
its executives. The Court also found that plaintiffs had
sufficiently alleged facts that allowed for the inference that
individuals higher in the company also had some level of awareness
of the bribery scheme, necessarily implicating those who would
have had a role in approving VEON's public filings. In that
regard, the Court rejected VEON's argument that plaintiffs must
allege that the individuals whose state of mind is imputed to the
corporate defendant are the same individuals who made the relevant
misstatements or omissions. The Court concluded that these
admissions, taken together with the other facts alleged by
plaintiffs, were sufficient to give rise to a strong inference of
corporate scienter. Further, while the Court noted that there was
an issue with plaintiffs' loss causation allegations (in
particular, it agreed with the company's argument that plaintiffs
have not tied their losses to the misrepresentations and omissions
as compared to the underlying conduct), the Court declined to
dismiss the claims for failure to allege loss causation and
instead reasoned that the "most efficient resolution" is to modify
the proposed class definition to address that issue. Finally, the
Court declined to dismiss plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim, as the
arguments for dismissing that claim rested entirely on the
insufficiency of plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim, which the Court
allowed to proceed.
This case highlights that while FCPA violations by themselves
cannot give rise to a private right of action, plaintiffs may be
able to sustain securities claims based on the alleged criminal
wrongdoing if they can sufficiently plead that the failure to
disclose such criminal conduct made the company's other disclosure
material misleading. [GN]
VIRGINIA: 1 Million Drivers Lost Licenses Over Unpaid Court Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Wm. Moyer, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
millions of drivers in the United States have lost their licenses
for failing to pay court debts, according to a new report, and
advocates say the practice unfairly punishes the poor.
The report, released on Sept. 26 by the Falls Church-based Legal
Aid Justice Center, which represents low-income Virginians, says
that 43 states and the District of Columbia suspend driver's
licenses because of unpaid fines and fees, trapping people in a
"vicious court debt cycle."
The study indicates that the licenses of more than 4.2 million
people were revoked in the five states it studied: Virginia,
Texas, North Carolina, Tennessee and Michigan. Those states were
chosen because of existing litigation or because the numbers were
readily available.
Texas led the way, with 1.8 million licenses suspended for failure
to pay. North Carolina was second with 1.2 million, and Virginia
was third with 977,000.
Among all states, just four require officials to determine whether
defendants can afford to pay fines before suspending their
licenses, according to the study, which says "virtually all"
states that suspend licenses can do so indefinitely. In addition,
19 states require that licenses be suspended for unpaid fines.
"Across the country, millions of people have lost their licenses
simply because they are too poor to pay, effectively depriving
them of reliable, lawful transportation necessary to get to and
from work, take children to school, keep medical appointments,
care for ill or disabled family members, or, paradoxically, to
meet their financial obligations to the courts," the report says.
The Legal Aid Justice Center released the report about a year
after filing a class-action lawsuit that alleged that the licenses
of more than 940,000 Virginians were suspended in an
"unconstitutional scheme." The lawsuit explained the struggles
faced by four plaintiffs, including Damian Stinnie, a
Charlottesville man diagnosed with lymphoma who became homeless
after failing to pay about $1,000 in traffic fines.
A federal judge dismissed the class action in March, saying the
issue should be decided by a state court -- a decision that is
under appeal. The Stinnie case opened the door for similar cases
across the country, including in Michigan, California and Texas.
"We actually had people contacting us from other states to ask for
our complaint and to look at the litigation," said
Angela Ciolfi, a legal director at the Legal Aid Justice Center.
"It was clear to us it wasn't just a Virginia problem."
Adrian Fowler, a 32-year-old single mother of a 4-year-old
daughter in Detroit, is the plaintiff in a federal Michigan class
action filed in May that challenges that state's "unconstitutional
wealth-based suspension scheme," the lawsuit said.
Ms. Fowler has lived without a license since 2012, when she tried
to renew it and learned it was suspended for unpaid tickets she
received while living in Georgia, according to the lawsuit brought
by Equal Justice Under Law, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit
that fights wealth discrimination. The first ticket was a
citation for "obstruction of view" for a small windshield crack,
Fowler said.
Now, she estimates she owes $2,000 in two states. Ms. Fowler
makes $8.90 per hour, Michigan's minimum wage, working part time
as a security guard, and she turned down a higher-paying job with
her employer because of a lack of transportation. She also got a
speeding ticket while driving her daughter to the hospital,
according to the lawsuit.
"Hopefully they will take accountability to stop this and work
with people," Ms. Fowler said. "A lot of these courts, they don't
care if you're trying to go to school, buy a house, save college
funds -- they just want their money."
In a response to the lawsuit, attorneys for Michigan's secretary
of state, the defendant in the case, said in a court filing that
the issue shouldn't be decided by a federal court and that "fines
are rational."
"Those who commit an offense and are in the system . . . consume
the system's resources," the response said. "Recouping some of
those costs is long-standing, reasonable and permitted under the
law."
The issue gained prominence in 2015, when a Justice Department
investigation of the Ferguson, Missouri, police department found
law enforcement acting as a "collection agency" for state and
local governments trying to raise revenue.
Advocates for the poor say those struggling under court debts,
especially in areas without access to public transportation, have
a difficult time getting back on their feet.
"Suspended licenses can trap people who are poor in an impossible
situation: they cannot afford to reinstate their licenses without
steady employment, but they are unable to work without a license,"
the Michigan lawsuit says. [GN]
WALMART STORES: Court Awards $12.9MM Class Action Attorneys' Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Dowdy, Esq. -- JDowdy@kilpatricktownsend.com -- and Phillip
Harris Jr., Esq. -- PHarris@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
wrote that on September 14, 2017, the Northern District of
California entered its order awarding attorneys' fees to
plaintiffs' class action counsel in Ridgeway v. Walmart Stores,
Inc., No. 08-cv-05221-SI, 2017 WL 4071293 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14,
2017). In the order, the court required the defendant to pay
$12,983,324.25 in fees to plaintiffs' counsel in addition to the
$60.8 million damages award in the case. The court's analysis
highlights a number of issues that defendants facing potential
class action liability should consider.
First, the posture of the case can impact whether attorneys' fees
increase the total final judgment amount. In many instances, a
defendant can settle a class action on court-approved terms that
require plaintiffs' counsel to recover their fees from the total
settlement amount. In that situation, the defendants' total
payout is limited. If, however, a case proceeds to judgment under
a statute that permits fee-shifting, then the defendant can be
required to pay some or all of the class' counsel fees in addition
to the amount it must pay as damages to the class.
Second, when a case reaches judgment, there is no clear bright
line rule establishing how statutory fee-shifting and the common
fund doctrine should interact, and courts have broad discretion in
determining the fee award. Most courts tend to analyze the issue
the same way the Ridgeway court has, by awarding a percentage of
the class' recovery to class counsel under the common fund
doctrine and requiring the defendant to reimburse the class for
the amount of the statutory-fee shifting award. For example, in
Ridgeway, the court awarded class counsel twenty-five percent of
the $60.8 million recovery, or $15,200,002.90, which the court
offset by statutory fee award of $12,983,324.25, such that the
class' recovery was reduced only by the $2,216,678.65 difference.
We recently handled a case in which class counsel requested that
the fees be considered part of the judgment to the class (based on
the language of a particular fee-shifting statute), which would
have increased the amount of the award from the common fund. The
court declined to adopt that approach and instead used the same
approach as the Ridgeway court. Dijkstra v. Carenbauer, No. 5:11-
CV-152, 2015 WL 12750449, at *6-7 (N.D.W. Va. July 29, 2015).
Third, the court's discretion concerning the fee award to class
counsel is broad, even if the case does not reach final judgment.
Rule 23(h) provides that "[i]n a certified class action, the court
may award reasonable attorney's fees and nontaxable costs that are
authorized by law or by the parties' agreement." As Ridgeway
demonstrates, that discretion includes not only the source of the
fees (common fund, statutory fee-shifting, or both), but also the
percentage of the common fund, the multiplier to be applied to the
statutory lodestar analysis, and whether a particular billing
entry or set of entries is reasonable and should be awarded.
Fourth, when considering a defendant's challenges to fee petitions
by class counsel, courts are not necessarily inclined to hold
plaintiffs' counsel to the same rules that many defendants have
for their outside counsel. In Ridgeway, the court declined to
significantly cut class counsel's lodestar award based on
arguments that class counsel had: (1) performed unnecessary
discovery work, (2) failed to write detailed time entries, (3)
made multiple 0.1- and 0.2-hour entries, (4) block-billed, (5)
billed for travel time, (6) assigned multiple firms or attorneys
to work on the same issue, (7) failed to shift work to timekeepers
with lower rates, (8) billed for clerical tasks, (9) failed to
keep contemporaneous time logs, (10) billed for continuing legal
education related to the causes of action, and (11) billed for
time interviewing witnesses who did not ultimately testify in the
case. The court did make some reductions for travel time, clerical
work, and unnecessary duplication, but these reductions were far
less than the defendant requested.
Key Takeaways. Often, a class action defendant does not have a
plan for addressing or opposing class counsel's attorneys' fees
until the end of a case. Given the potential for fees to increase
a final judgment, and the broad discretion courts possess in
ruling on class counsel's fee petitions, defendants and their
counsel would be wise to: (1) analyze how statutory fee shifting
may impact the case, and (2) bring fee-related considerations to
the presiding judges' attention early in, and throughout, the
case. Doing so will not only allow for insight into a defendant's
potential liability for attorneys' fees, but it will also offer
opportunities to decrease the likelihood that the court will award
certain fees requested by class counsel.
[GN]
WASTE PRO: Faces "Wright" Suit in South Carolina
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waste Pro USA Inc.
The case is styled as Anthony Wright and Daniel Hansen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Waste Pro USA Inc, Waste Pro of Florida Inc and
Waste Pro of South Carolina Inc, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
02654-DCN (D.S.C., October 2, 2017).
Waste Pro USA, Inc. provides solid waste collection, recycling,
processing, and disposal services to residential and commercial
customers in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ben LeClercq, Esq.
LeClercq Law Firm
353 North Shelmore Blvd., Suite 260
Mt Pleasant, SC 29464
Tel: (843) 722-3523
Email: Ben@LeClercqLaw.com
WELLS FARGO: In Settlement Talks in Mortgage Modifications Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Rothacker, writing for Charlotte Observer, reports that Wells
Fargo has agreed to "good faith class settlement negotiations" to
resolve a lawsuit that alleges the bank was making "stealth"
mortgage modifications that could vastly increase homeowners'
borrowing costs, according to a filing on Sept. 25 in federal
bankruptcy court in Charlotte.
Gaston County homeowners Christopher and Allison Cotton gained
national attention in June when they filed their class-action
lawsuit in federal bankruptcy court here against the San
Francisco-based bank. The case was another black eye for Wells as
it tries to recover from a major scandal over its consumer banking
sales practices.
After the parties agreed to settlement talks, U.S. Bankruptcy
Court Judge Laura Beyer agreed to postpone a hearing on the
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the bank
from making alleged loan changes without borrower approval.
Among other conditions, Wells has also agreed not to make any of
the payment changes in question in any Chapter 13 debtors'
bankruptcy cases while settlement talks are ongoing.
Thad Bartholow, an attorney for the Cottons, declined to comment.
Wells Fargo, which has strongly denied the claims in the case,
also would not comment.
The Cottons filed their voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition
in February 2014, according to the complaint filed in June. They
were current on their mortgage payments to Wells Fargo at the
time, and have remained current on payments outlined by their
Chapter 13 plan, the suit said.
However, the complaint alleged Wells Fargo made "illegal stealth
modifications" that caused the Chapter 13 trustee in the case to
pay less than originally required, resulting in "defaults that
were not the Cottons' fault."
The suit also alleged the bank made loan modifications that would
have added thousands of dollars to the couple's mortgage debt over
the term of the loan without their knowledge. One change, for
example, resulted in a new 40-year loan that would have extended
their mortgage by 26 years, incurring at least $84,939 in
additional interest. [GN]
WISCONSIN, USA: Class of Juvenile Detainees Certified in JJ Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James D. Peterson entered an order in the lawsuit styled
J.J., by and through his next friend Sakeena Jackson; K.D., by and
through her next friends John Levy and Meranda Davis; C.M., by and
through his next friend Toinette Ducksworth; R.N., by and through
his next friend Gloria Norwood; M.S., by and through his next
friend Jolene Waupekanay; A.V., by and through his next friend
Veronica Rocha-Montejano; M.R., by and through his next friend
Autumn Rodgers; S.K., by and through her next friend Thomas Korn;
and A.P., by and through her next friend Louise Plaskey v. JON E.
LITSCHER, JOHN D. PAQUIN, WENDY A. PETERSON, and BRIAN GUSTKE,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00047-jdp (W.D. Wisc.):
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure;
2. certifying this class:
"All persons who are now, or in the future will be,
confined at Lincoln Hills School for Boys and Copper Lake
School for Girls";
3. ruling that the issues certified for class treatment are
the constitutionality of defendants' policies on the use of
solitary confinement, mechanical restraints, and chemical
agents; and
4. appointing the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, the Juvenile
Law Center, and the law firm of Quarles & Brady LLP as
class counsel.
The parties may have until October 10, 2017, to submit a joint
report regarding defendants' compliance with the preliminary
injunction. If the parties cannot agree on the all aspects of the
report, they may file separate statements on points of
disagreement within the report, Judge Peterson states.
Jon E. Litscher is the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of
Corrections. John D. Paquin is the Administrator of Division of
Juvenile Corrections of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.
Wendy A. Peterson is the Superintendent of the Lincoln Hills
School for Boys and the Copper Lake School for Girls. Brian
Gustke is the Director of Security for the Lincoln Hills School
for Boys and the Copper Lake School for Girls.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Rfxlnv1t
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Laurence J. Dupuis, Esq.
ACLU OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION
207 E. Buffalo Street, Suite 325
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 272-4032
Facsimile: (414) 272-0182
E-mail: ldupuis@aclu-wi.org
- and -
Jessica Feierman, Esq.
JUVENILE LAW CENTER
The Philadelphia Building
1315 Walnut Street, 4th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 625-0551
E-mail: jfeierman@jlc.org
- and -
Rachel A. Graham, Esq.
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
33 East Main Street, Suite 900
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 251-5000
E-mail: rachel.graham@quarles.com
- and -
Emily L. Stedman, Esq.
Zachary T. Eastburn, Esq.
411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2350
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4426
Telephone: (414) 277-5000
E-mail: emily.stedman@quarles.com
zachary.eastburn@quarles.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Samuel C. Hall, Jr., Esq.
CRIVELLO CARLSON, S.C.
710 N. Plankinton Ave., Suite 500
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Telephone: (414) 271-7722
Facsimile: (414) 271-4438
E-mail: shall@crivellocarlson.com
XCERRA CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, on Sept. 25 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of current stockholders of
Xcerra Corporation ("Xcerra" or the "Company") (NASDAQGS: XCRA) in
connection with the planned acquisition of the company by an
affiliate of Sino IC Capital.
On April 10, 2017, Xcerra announced it had entered into an
agreement pursuant to which Sino IC Capital, through its affiliate
Unic Capital Management Co, Ltd., would acquire all outstanding
shares of Xcerra for $10.25 per share. The lawsuit is captioned
Stallings v. Xcerra Corp., et al. (Case No. 1:17-cv-11579), and
alleges that defendants solicit stockholders' votes in support of
the sale of the Company through a proxy statement that omits
material facts necessary to make the statements therein not false
or misleading. Stockholders require this material information to
cast a properly informed vote of their shares.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 24, 2017. If you wish to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Joseph E. Levi, at
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, (212) 363-7500, or via e-mail at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. Any member of the putative class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.
A CLASS HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE.
Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.
The firm's attorneys have extensive experience representing
investors in securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. [GN]
* Equifax Hack, Wells Fargo Scandal Reveal Arbitration Flaws
------------------------------------------------------------
Ali Naini, writing for New York Daily News, reports that as most
everyone has belatedly learned, Equifax, one of the "Big Three"
credit reporting agencies, experienced a massive hack in July. The
result: exposure of Social Security numbers, credit card accounts,
birth dates and other personal information of 143 million
Americans. In response to this egregious failure to safeguard the
data in its possession, Equifax offered one year of "free" credit
monitoring to consumers -- but only if they waived their right to
sue Equifax in class-action suits, and agreed to arbitration
instead, for claims involving the credit monitoring service.
How's that for atonement?
Not sufficient. After heavy criticism, the company backtracked,
but its change of heart does nothing to address the underlying
problem with forced arbitration clauses like the one Equifax tried
to foist onto the real victims of the hack.
These clauses are now ubiquitous, appearing in agreements for bank
accounts, credit cards, pay-day loans and credit report
monitoring, among other places. After years of congressionally
mandated study and careful review of thousands of comments, the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, in July issued a
regulation preventing banks and other companies from requiring
mandatory arbitration and class-action waivers in their agreements
with consumers.
But the House of Representatives has voted to kill the regulation,
and the Senate may soon do the same. The Equifax incident, among
others, shows why that would be a terrible decision for Americans.
Major corporations and financial institutions frequently invoke
such clauses to avoid consumers' claims and accountability. Take
Wells Fargo. The bank, which recently revealed that its fake-
account scandal encompasses 1.4 million more accounts than the 2.1
million previously disclosed, is now attempting to shunt some of
its defrauded consumers into secretive arbitrations instead of
allowing them to band together and litigate in open court.
The consequences of such forced arbitration are significant: It
would prevent class actions like the one that recently recovered
$30 million for 130,000 active-duty service-members who alleged
that Bank of America had charged them illegally high interest
rates. If these service-members banked with Wells Fargo, they
would have been out of luck.
Opponents of the CFPB's rule claim that it primarily benefits
trial lawyers, supposedly because class actions provide only
nominal relief to consumers and are less efficient than
arbitration. But these criticisms miss the forest for the trees.
Although the average recovery per person is lower in class actions
than arbitrations, each class action provides relief to thousands
of consumers.
In contrast, individual arbitration benefits only one person.
Examining data compiled by the CFPB, the Economic Policy Institute
recently found that in an average year, 6.8 million consumers
receive cash relief from class actions, while only 16 do so from
arbitrations.
Moreover, a scheme like Wells Fargo's is particularly devastating
to people living on the financial precipice because of the
collateral credit consequences, and consumers struggling
financially are the least likely to use arbitration, which can be
costly and difficult to pursue without an attorney. Class actions
are brought on behalf of everyone harmed, with the assistance of
just one lawyer or law firm.
Thus, even those who cannot afford an attorney can recoup their
losses. In addition, although the average class action takes
about two months longer to resolve than an arbitration, the fact
that it's brought on behalf of all affected consumers makes it far
more efficient than arbitration, in which each injured person may
only pursue a case individually.
The service-members' litigation illustrates this point: One class
action was certainly more efficient than 130,000 service-members
filing their own arbitrations.
It's likely because of this efficiency that class actions generate
strong opposition. By allowing consumers who have been harmed to
band together, class actions provide one of the few avenues
through which consumers can hold companies like Equifax and Wells
Fargo accountable when they engage in bad acts. Furthermore,
because -- unlike arbitrations -- class actions are public, they
reveal wrongdoing that would otherwise remain hidden.
The CFPB's ban on forced arbitration and class-action waivers
restores the right of American consumers to pursue their claims in
court. The Senate would do well to keep the rule in place.
Ms. Naini is a staff attorney at Mobilization for Justice, Inc.
(formerly MFY Legal Services, Inc). [GN]
* Sen. Reed Opposes CFPB's Ban on Mandatory Arbitration Clauses
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to Competitive Enterprise Institute's Jenny Grimberg,
Ronald Reagan once observed that "the nine most terrifying words
in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here
to help.'" If Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) has anything to do with it,
that will continue to be true. The senator held an event to back
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) ban on mandatory
arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, which is facing
disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. Appearing
alongside public attorney Paul Bland, Sen. Reed argued that most
Americans are not knowledgeable enough of contracts to know what
these arbitration clauses really mean. The solution? The
government must step in to ban them to promote consumer welfare.
At the hearing, Mr. Bland concentrated on the Wells Fargo scandal
that began last year; he believes that if the bank had not made
use of mandatory arbitration clauses, consumers would have heard
about it earlier, and the bad behavior would not have gone on for
so long. The event also featured a woman who was defrauded by
Wells Fargo, and explained that she has since joined a class
action lawsuit against the company as the only way for her and
others to get justice.
This argument has no merit; as my colleague Ted Frank points out,
Wells Fargo is already answering publicly for the scandal by being
forced by existing regulators to pay fines in the hundreds of
millions of dollars, imposing layoffs, and suffering reputational
damage. The scandal escaped attention for so long partly because
the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency "did not take timely
and effective supervisory actions after the bank and the OCC
together identified significant issues with complaint management
and sales practices," not because of the use of arbitration.
When asked why the CFPB could not simply have companies include
opt-out clauses for arbitrations instead of outright banning the
language, Mr. Bland said studies showed that American consumers
don't read the fine print of contracts enough to make these opt-
out clauses viable, and even when they do, Americans are not smart
enough to understand them. Yet even when the fine print is drawn
to people's attention, they are unwilling to give up the benefits
of arbitration. A campaign by Public Citizen in 2012 encouraged
customers of eBay to use the opt-out clause for mandatory
arbitration, yet few customers ended up doing so, because it was
not in their best interests.
Even if it were true that a typical American consumer does not
know enough about contract law to make the optimal decision, it
does not follow that the government has to step in to make the
decision for him. Perhaps the reason many Americans don't opt out
of these clauses is because arbitration truly produces better
results than class-action lawsuits do, as CEI argued in 2016.
If class-action suits were truly better for consumers, they would
refuse to sign contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses, and
use of the clause would die out on its own. In fact, consumers
see benefits from mandatory arbitration that outweigh whatever
benefits they get from reserving a right to join a class action
that will often provide no meaningful redress while awarding their
lawyers millions of dollars.
America was founded on the principle of freedom, including freedom
of contract. The greatest founding father,
George Washington, included an arbitration clause in his own will.
Whether intentionally or not, Sen. Reed and his allies are using
hard cases to put the interests of trial lawyers above the
interests of a free people. [GN]
* Wisconsin State Bar Board Discusses Class Action Statutes
-----------------------------------------------------------
The State Bar of Wisconsin's Board of Governors discussed, but
took no action on, two other petitions that are pending before the
Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Judicial Council filed
both petitions.
Petition 17-03 would amend Wisconsin's class action statutes to
closely match the federal rules on class actions. Sherry Coley, a
member of the Judicial Council Committee, said Wisconsin's class
action statute does not give much guidance.
"It doesn't really give a lot of guidance to practitioners or,
more importantly, circuit court judges as far as what to do if a
class action is filed," Ms. Coley told the board. She noted
limited case law that judges can look to when dealing with state-
based class actions.
The Judicial Council believes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
the federal class action rule, provides a good framework that
Wisconsin can use to revise its own statute.
"Essentially, it's time to update this," Ms. Coley said.
Ms. Coley said the proposal would match Wisconsin class action
statutes with Rule 23, besides a few key differences particular to
Wisconsin, including a recent rule change that says class action
residual funds go to the Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation.
The new statute would also retain an exception, included within
the current Wisconsin statute, which prohibits class action claims
for tax-related matters. The petition is scheduled for a public
hearing on Oct. 30, 2017. [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. Agravante, 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 * * *