/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/171019.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 19, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 207 Headlines ALAMO GROUP: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Jarvis" Suit ALLSTATE FIRE: Can Arbitrate NJ Auto Injury Action After All AMAZON.COM DEDC: Hargrett Moves to Certify Class of Consumers AMERICAN EXPRESS: Judge Dismisses Pension Fund's Fraud Suit ANGIE OF POLK: Faces "Terris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ARCONIC INC: "Lombana" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Jan. 19 Settlement Hearing Set B&R MOLL: Accused by "Fries" Suit of Not Paying OT Under FLSA BANK OF AMERICA: May 23 FX Settlement Fairness Hearing Set BANK OF AMERICA: Failed to Correct Credit Reports, Lawsuit Says BANK OF NAPA: Faces "Parshall" Suit in N.D. of California BASALITE CONCRETE: Faces "Carrozzella" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BASF CORP: Violates Off-the-Clock Provision of FLSA, Parker Says BAYER U.S.: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Douglas Says BERIOZKA REST: "Shulepov" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under Labor Law BLUE CROSS: Fails to Comply with Provisions of Assembly Bill 72 BOWLS LLC: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in Southern District of New York BRASKEM SA: Cohen Milstein Discloses Settlement of Class Action CANADA: 60s Scoop Settlement 'In Best Interest of Class Members CHEMOURS COMPANY: Face Class Action Over GenX CINEMEX USA: Collective Action Cert. Sought in "Gutierrez" Suit CRESTWOOD, IL: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Red Light Camera CRUISE WEB: Alloways Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA DENTSPLY SIRONA: Johnson Fistel Starts Investigation DIAMOND WIPES: Williams Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code EL PUERTO: Faces "Mondragon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ENDO INTERNATIONAL: County Also Sues Drug Manufacturers EPIC SYSTEMS: SC Considers Viability of Waivers EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Dhuka" Suit for Not Protecting Credit Info EQUIFAX INC: Fails to Properly Protect PII, "Bakken" Suit Alleges EQUIFAX INC: "Williams" Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages EQUIFAX INC: Ogburn Sues in Virginia Alleging FCRA Violations EQUIFAX INC: Michigan CUNA Joins Lawsuit After Data Breach FINANCIAL AMERICAN: Faces "O'Donnell" Suit in S.D. Fla. FIRST NATIONAL: "Day" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida FRIENDLUM INC: "Sandoval" Sues Over TCPA Violation FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: KSF Files Securities Class Action GEORGIA: Sheriff Indicted After Body Searches of Students GOOGLE INC: Suit Alleging Women Paid Less Speeded Up by Judge GOVERNMENT PAYMENT: Miner Renews Bid for Class Certification HEALTH INSURANCE: Expanded Class Period in Securities Suit HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Rudel Seeks Prelim. OK of Class Settlement HEARTLAND PAYMENT: $2.5MM Class Action Settlement Gets Judge's OK HONDA MOTOR: Reaches Settlements in Takata Lawsuits HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING: "Rowe" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation HSBC BANK: Faces Royal Park Suit in S.D. of New York JCM DISTRIBUTORS: Law Office of Timothy Carl Blake Files Suit L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: ERISA Class Suit Against Executives Dismissed LOS ANGELES, CA: Feb. 14 LADWP Settlement Approval Hearing Set LULU FROST: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation MAJU PUNCAK: Meda Responds to Suit By Arc @ Cyberjaya Unit Owners MDL 2792: "Zamora" Suit v. Samsung Moved to W.D. Okla. Court MDL 2795: "Allison" Suit Transferred to Minnesota Federal Court MDL 2795: "Hanifen" Suit Transferred into Minnesota Federal Court MEADE RECOVERY: Hyer Sues in Utah Alleging Violations of FDCPA MODANI NY: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D.N.Y. NABORS DRILLING: Calderon Seeks to Certify Class of Rig Welders NANTKWEST INC: Johnson Fistel Announces Investigations NEW YORK: Broken Bail System Drives Civil Rights Claims NEW YORK, NY: Josefina S. Files Suit in S.D.N.Y. NUTRISYSTEM INC: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in Southern District of NY OKLAHOMA CTY: Faces "Moreland" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation OREGON: Salem Officials Want City to Sue State on Tax ORION HEALTHCORP: Singh-Narayan Seeks Unpaid OT under Labor Law PASTA GUYS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PATHWAY TO HOPE: "Waymon-Gay" Labor Suit Seek Unpaid OT Wages PETLAND: Hit With Class Suit Over Bacterial Disease From Puppies PLY GEM: Faces "Gazzillo" Class Suit in North. Dist. New York PNC BANK: Not Liable in Ohio Ponzi Scheme, Says Appeals Court PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Horton" Suit Over FDCA Violation PRICELINE GROUP: Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Faces Tower Health Center Suit in S.D. of Fla PROVIDENCE HEALTH: "Caceres" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code PUEBLO COUNTY, CO: Suit Seeks Order to Fix Prison Problems PURDUE PHARMA: Indianapolis Hires Law Firm to Pursue Legal Action REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Whitley" Suit in E.D. of New York RESTAURANT BRANDS: Tim Hortons Franchisees Sue for $850MM RICE ENERGY: Williford Moves to Certify Class of Oilfield Workers RISE MEDICAL: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, "Horn" Suit Claims ROYAL OAK: Class of Terminated Workers Certified in "Bystry" Suit SAN DIEGO, CA: Trash Truck Drivers Get $500K to Settle Wage Suit SCANA CORPORATION: "Brown" Suit Moved to South Carolina Court SCRANTON, PA: Resident Sues Over Sewer Sale Proceeds SECURA INSURANCE: Face "Kresal" Suit in Western District of Wis SERAFINA MANAGEMENT: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. of New York SNAPPER INN: Judicial Intervention Sought in "Orgera" Suit SNG LAUNDROMAT: Seeks to Dismiss "Baca" Suit SOCAL PERMANENTE: "Roy" Suit Moved to C.D. California STARBUCKS CORP: "Wills" Suit Seeks Damages Under FCRA STATE COLLECTION: Studebaker's Motion to Certify Class Stricken SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Unlikely Alliance Formed in Sewer Lawsuit SUGAR LAND, TX: Resident Sues Over Red Light Cameras SUN BANCORP: "Chetcuti" Suit Seeks to Block Sale to OceanFirst TACOS EL BRONCO: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TINTRI INC: Faces "Clayton" Securities Class Action TOOTSIE ROLL: Hit With Class Action Over Junior Mints Packaging TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Settlement Targets Student Loan Trusts TREASURY WINE: Decision Confirms Shift in CA Closure Process UNITED STATES: Accused of Targeting "Dreamers" for Deportation UNITED STATES: Whitaker Files Suit v. Dept. of Commerce VERTS MEDITERRANEAN: Faces "Young" Suit in S. Dist. New York VITAMIN WORLD: Faces "Kiler" Class Suit in East. Dist. New York VOLKSWAGEN: MDL Panel Sends Cases to California WELCH FOODS: NJ Judge Moves Fruit Snacks CA Across the River WELLS FARGO: Court Certifies Class & Subclasses in "Nguyen" Suit WELLS FARGO: Bosses Can't Dodge Shareholder Class Action WESTAR ENERGY: Pill Seeks to Enjoin Merger With Great Plains YAHOO INC: Asked to Weigh in On New Data Breach Disclosures YUMMY FOODS: "Macrae" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code * SC Weighs Whether Workers Must Face Arbitrations Alone ********* ALAMO GROUP: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Jarvis" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- David Jarvis, Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. DAVID JARVIS, VARIOUS UNNAMED STATES ex rel. DAVID JARVIS, and UNAMED GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES ex rel. DAVID JARVIS and DAVID JARVIS, Individually; and all others similarly situated v. ALAMO GROUP (IL), INC, and ALAMO GROUP (TX), INC., Case No. 2:14-cv-02318-CSB-JEH, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois (Urbana), appeals from: -- the July 6, 2017 Order entered By Judge Colin Stirling Bruce Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on Counts I, II, III, and IV of the complaint; and -- subsequent denials of extension of time to take limited discovery to amend the complaint by Text Order, Entered: July 27, 2017; and -- the Text Order of August 23, 2017, entered by Judge Bruce -- denying Plaintiff's 28 U.S.C. Section 636 Motion for Relief From the Magistrate Judge's Discovery Ruling, which now dismisses the case with prejudice and enters judgment in favor of the Defendants. The appellate case is captioned as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. DAVID JARVIS, VARIOUS UNNAMED STATES ex rel. DAVID JARVIS, and UNAMED GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES ex rel. DAVID JARVIS and DAVID JARVIS, Individually; and all others similarly situated v. ALAMO GROUP (IL), INC, and ALAMO GROUP (TX), INC., Case No. 17-2953, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Plaintiff-Relator David Jarvis filed the action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the United States, and other unnamed states or governmental entities pursuant to the False Claims Act. Plaintiff has also filed claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and other Illinois laws. The case concerns alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by the Defendants, who manufacture heavy duty industrial lawnmowers and operate under the Rhino brand name, in connection with the sale of landscaping equipment to governmental entities and other purchasers. Relator claims the violations involve the sale of rotary cutters -- flex-wing lawnmowers -- with gearbox horsepower ratings that have been falsified and exaggerated under the Rhino brand name. The Amended Complaint is based on the Defendants' alleged false marketing and selling of certain Rhino mowers as having a gearbox horsepower capacity beyond the known horsepower capacity. The gearboxes, according to Relator, actually have a lower than specified rating, and thus, in instances where the sale is based on a governmental bid or required specification, the sale would be a violation because Defendants are knowingly misstating that the gearbox rating meets a required specification.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant United States of America ex rel. David Jarvis is represented by: Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. Kenneth T. Goldstein, Esq. KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES LTD Civic Opera Bldg., Suite 1300 20 N Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 606-0500 Facsimile: (312) 606-0207 E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com ken@krislovlaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Friedman, Esq. Arijana Keserovic, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY FRIEDMAN PC 120 S State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 357-1431 Facsimile: (312) 357-2521 E-mail: friedman@jmflaw.com keserovic@jmflaw.com - and - Gregory M. Gilmore, Esq. US ATTORNEY 318 S Sixth Springfield, IL 62701-1806 Telephone: (217) 492-4450 Facsimile: (217) 492-4512 E-mail: greg.gilmore@usdoj.gov Defendants-Appellees ALAMO GROUP (IL), INC., and ALAMO GROUP (TX), INC., are represented by: Jason Micah Ross, Esq. DYKEMA COX SMITH 1717 Main Street, Suite 4200 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 462-6400 Facsimile: (214) 462-6401 E-mail: jross@dykema.com - and - Jonathan S. Feld, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 10 S Wacker Dr., Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 627-5680 Facsimile: (800) 951-0574 E-mail: JFeld@dykema.com ALLSTATE FIRE: Can Arbitrate NJ Auto Injury Action After All ------------------------------------------------------------ Darcy Reddan, writing for Law360, reports that an Allstate unit can force arbitration of putative class action claims brought by a hospital and car crash victim seeking unpaid medical benefits, with a New Jersey federal judge granting the insurer's bid to reconsider an earlier denial and acknowledging that ruling was wrong. U.S. District Judge Anne E. Thompson on October 4 found that Allstate adequately argued that broader arbitration language within the New Jersey Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act, which provides for personal injury protection coverage, or PIP, extends to what's called New Jersey's "Deemer Statute." That law concerns PIP coverage for out-of-state drivers such as plaintiff Juan Gonzalez, who, together with the Ambulatory Surgical Center of Somerset, brought the class suit against Allstate. Judge Thompson said that her previous decision rejecting arbitration in the case -- which accuses Allstate of unlawfully denying coverage for surgeries -- failed to consider the impact of amendments to the PIP statute that allow insurers to force arbitration. "The court's original holding was misplaced, and it would be unjust and inconsistent with the scheme set forth by the New Jersey legislature to find otherwise," Judge Thompson said. Under the Deemer Statute, an out-of-state insured is entitled to the PIP coverage required under New Jersey law when the covered vehicle is involved in a New Jersey accident. Meanwhile, the arbitration provision of the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act states that disputes regarding the recovery of medical benefits provided under PIP coverage "may be submitted to dispute resolution on the initiative of any party to the dispute." In August, the court denied Allstate's motion to compel saying there was neither an arbitration agreement nor notice that the parties could be forced to arbitrate the matter. However, Judge Thompson on October 4 said she previously relied on an older interpretation of the Cost Reduction Act's arbitration provision that gave only claimants the right to compel arbitration. Insurers were originally excluded because they were expected to be aware of provisions such as PIP. "PIP's dispute resolution provision was amended to empower any party to a dispute to compel arbitration, including insurance companies," The judge said. The court ultimately ruled that the amended dispute resolution provision should be incorporated in the Deemer Statute and an insurance company can compel arbitration with an out-of-state claimant. "The amendment is part of a broader regulatory scheme designed to promote more efficient handling of insurance claims, specifically through more frequent extra-judicial dispute resolution," Judge Thompson said. Gonzalez and the surgical center launched the proposed class action against Allstate in September in connection with claims that the insurer has unlawfully denied coverage for a surgery Gonzalez underwent at the facility in March 2015. The surgery was related to injuries Gonzalez sustained in an August 2011 car accident in Jefferson Township, New Jersey, court documents state. At the time of the accident, Gonzalez was insured by an auto policy issued by Allstate in Pennsylvania, court documents state. Allstate has refused to reimburse the surgical center for the procedure, because the code assigned to Gonzalez's surgery was not listed in New Jersey's auto medical fee schedule for such payments, according to court documents. Gonzalez and the surgical center are seeking liability and damages on behalf of two proposed classes: individuals insured by Allstate who were injured in car accidents and are entitled to automobile medical benefits under New Jersey law, and ambulatory surgical facilities that performed procedures for which there are no codes listed in the fee schedule and for which Allstate has refused payment, according to court documents Representatives for both sides did not return request for comment. The plaintiffs are represented by Charles Kannebecker, Esq. -- info@kannebeckerlaw.com Allstate is represented by David J. D'Aloia, Esq. -- ddaloia@saiber.com -- Michael Grohs, Esq. -- mgrohs@saiber.com -- and Marc E. Wolin, Esq. -- mwolin@saiber.com -- of Saiber LLC. The case is Ambulatory Surgical Center of Somerset and Juan Gonzalez v. Allstate Fire Casualty Insurance Co., case number 3:16-cv-05378, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN] AMAZON.COM DEDC: Hargrett Moves to Certify Class of Consumers ------------------------------------------------------------- Donovan Hargrett and Michael Austin, two of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuits titled DONOVAN HARGRETT, et al. v. AMAZON.com DEDC LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-02456-RAL-AAS (M.D. Fla.), and MICHAEL AUSTIN and DEOLINDA S.M. BONDE, et al. v. AMAZON.com DEDC LLC, Case No. 8:15- cv-2588-T-26JSS (M.D. Fla.), move the Court to certify the Fair Credit Reporting Act case as a class action for a national class of consumers who applied for work with Amazon.com and for whom Amazon obtained consumer reports for employment purposes without having a statutory basis for doing so. The Plaintiffs seek certification of this class of consumers, of which they are members: All natural persons in the United States who (1) applied online for work at Amazon.com using Salesforce.com; (2) were the subject of a consumer report that was procured by Amazon.com (or cause to be procured by Amazon) from Accurate Background, Inc.; (3) to whom Amazon.com presented the disclosure and authorization form attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint before procuring that report; (4) within two years of the filing of this lawsuit through the date the Class List is prepared. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iJumyWkh The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven G. Wenzel, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: swenzel@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com - and - Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. Elizabeth Hanes, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com elizabeth@clalegal.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Judge Dismisses Pension Fund's Fraud Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- State Journal Register reports that Plumbers And Pipefitters Local 137 Pension Fund of Springfield is the lead plaintiff in a proposed class-action lawsuit against American Express recently dismissed by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, claimed American Express defrauded shareholders, including pension fund investors, on the financial effects when a co-branding partnership with Costco Wholesale Corp. ended in 2015. The lawsuit does not seek specific damages but claims the pension fund would not have purchased American Express stock or would have purchased the stock at a lower price if the Costco decision had been properly disclosed. In dismissing the ruling, the judge concluded American Express properly disclosed what it knew at the time on the possible loss of Costco. The judge also ruled an amended lawsuit could be filed. [GN] ANGIE OF POLK: Faces "Terris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Brandy Terris, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Angie of Polk County, Inc. d/b/a Manny's Original Chophouse and Emmanuel Nikolaidis, Case No. 8:17-cv- 02241-VMC-AAS (N.D. Fla., September 27, 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 located at 35496 Hwy 27, Haines City, FL 33844-3727. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher James Saba, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Telephone: (813) 321-4086 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: csaba@wfclaw.com ARCONIC INC: "Lombana" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM LOMBANA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARCONIC, INC., a Corporation, ALCOA, INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No.BC679318 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 12, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under California Business and Professions Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, and the California Labor Code. Arconic is a company specializing in lightweight metals engineering and manufacturing. Arconic's products, which include aluminum, titanium, and nickel, are used worldwide in aerospace and automotive.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Burrows, Esq. BURROWS LAW FIRM 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 526 9998 Facsimile: (424) 644 2446 E-mail: cburrows@cburrowslaw.com - and - Sean M. Novak, Esq. NOVAK LAW FIRM, P.C. 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (323) 424 4313 Facsimile: (323) 424 4357 E-mail: smn@novaklawfirm.com AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Jan. 19 Settlement Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the Avalanche Biotechnologies Securities Litigation: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO In re AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. Lead Case No. CIV536488 CLASS ACTION Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Marie S. Weiner DEPT: 2 DATE ACTION FILED: 12/07/15 SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. ("AVALANCHE" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JULY 30, 2014 AND JUNE 15, 2015 (INCLUSIVE) ("CLASS PERIOD"), INCLUDING THOSE PERSONS THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMPANY'S COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS FOR THE COMPANY'S IPO AND THOSE PERSONS THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMPANY'S COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS FOR THE COMPANY'S SPO ("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on January 19, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Marie S. Weiner at the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Department 2, Courtroom 2E, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action (the "Action") as well as a federal action styled In re Avalanche Biotechnologies Securities Litigation, Master File No. 15-cv-03185, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("Federal Court Action") as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement ("Stipulation")1 for $13,000,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Final Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (3) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below); (4) to pay Plaintiffs the time and expenses they incurred in representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate. This Action and the Federal Court Action are securities class actions brought on behalf of those Persons who purchased or acquired the common stock of Avalanche during the Class Period, against Avalanche, certain of its key executives, directors and underwriters of Avalanche's IPO and SPO (collectively, "Defendants") for, among other things, allegedly misstating and omitting material facts from the Registration Statements filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the IPO and SPO concerning, among other things, the then- existing data about Avalanche's lead product, AVA-101, which was in development to treat patients with wet age-related macular degeneration. Plaintiffs allege that these purportedly false and misleading statements inflated the price of the Company's stock, resulting in damage to Class Members when the truth was revealed. Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations. IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED AVALANCHE COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JULY 30, 2014 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 15, 2015, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION AND THE FEDERAL COURT ACTION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than December 27, 2017) or electronically (no later than December 27, 2017). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by December 27, 2017, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action and the Federal Court Action. If you are a member of the Class and do not request exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Final Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement documents, online at www.AvalancheSecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com, or by writing to: Avalanche Securities Litigation Settlement Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 404025 Louisville, KY 40233-4025 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Plaintiffs' Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP James I. Jaconette, Esq. 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 800-449-4900 FARUQI & FARUQI LLP Richard W. Gonnello, Esq. 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212-983-9330 IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY NOVEMBER 27, 2017, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE PAYMENT TO PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR TIME AND EXPENSES. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL BY NOVEMBER 27, 2017, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: September 7, 2017 HONORABLE MARIE S. WEINER SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at www.AvalancheSecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com. B&R MOLL: Accused by "Fries" Suit of Not Paying OT Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- JIM FRIES, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. B&R MOLL, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-04238-ER (E.D. Pa., September 21, 2017), accuses the Defendant of improperly failing to pay the Plaintiff and others overtime compensation pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. B&R Moll, Inc., maintains a principal place of business in Warminster, Pennsylvania. The Company is a manufacturer of folder/gluers and specialized bindery in finishing equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com BANK OF AMERICA: May 23 FX Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP and Hausfeld LLP regarding the In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation. SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS If you entered into an FX Instrument or FX Exchange-Traded Instrument between January 1, 2003 and December 15, 2015, you may be affected by pending class action settlements. "FX Instrument" means foreign exchange ("FX") spot transactions, forwards, swaps, futures, options, and any other FX instrument or FX transaction the trading or settlement value of which is related in any way to foreign exchange rates. "FX Exchange-Traded Instruments" means any and all FX Instruments that were listed for trading through an exchange, including, but not limited to, FX futures and options on FX futures. This Notice is to alert you to proposed Settlements reached with the following "Settling Defendants": Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated ("Bank of America"); The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. ("BTMU"); Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays Capital Inc. ("Barclays"); BNP Paribas Group, BNP Paribas North America Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., and BNP Prime Brokerage, Inc. ("BNP Paribas"); Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citicorp, and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("Citigroup"); Deutsche Bank AG and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. ("Deutsche Bank"); The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Goldman, Sachs & Co. ("Goldman Sachs"); HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC North America Holdings Inc., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. ("HSBC"); JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("JPMorgan"); Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, and Morgan Stanley & Co., International PLC ("Morgan Stanley"); RBC Capital Markets LLC ("RBC"); The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, and RBS Securities Inc. ("RBS"); Societe Generale ("Soc Gen"); Standard Chartered Bank ("Standard Chartered"); and UBS AG, UBS Group AG, and UBS Securities LLC ("UBS"). Settling Defendants have settled a lawsuit alleging that Settling Defendants conspired to fix and manipulate prices in the FX market in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 3, and in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. Sections 1, et seq. Settling Defendants deny that the material allegations made against them in this Action have merit. In total, Settling Defendants have paid $2,310,275,000 into a Settlement Fund. The litigation is continuing against Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse AG, and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC ("Credit Suisse" or "Non-Settling Defendant," and collectively with Settling Defendants, "Defendants"). Non-Settling Defendant denies all allegations of wrongdoing. The Court has appointed the lawyers listed below to represent the Settlement Classes in this Action: Christopher M. Burke Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP 707 Broadway, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-233-4565 cburke@scott-scott.com Michael D. Hausfeld Hausfeld LLP 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: 202-540-7200 mhausfeld@hausfeld.com Who is a member of the Settlement Classes? The Court preliminarily approved two proposed Settlement Classes in this case. Subject to certain exceptions, the proposed "Direct Settlement Class" consists of all Persons who, between January 1, 2003 and December 15, 2015, entered into one or more FX Instruments directly with a Defendant, a direct or indirect parent, subsidiary, or division of a Defendant, a Released Party, or co-conspirator where such Persons were either domiciled in the United States or its territories or, if domiciled outside the United States or its territories, transacted FX Instruments in the United States or its territories. Subject to certain exceptions, the proposed "Exchange-Only Settlement Class" consists of all Persons who, between January 1, 2003 and December 15, 2015, entered into one or more FX Exchange- Traded Instruments where such Persons were either domiciled in the United States or its territories or, if domiciled outside the United States or its territories, entered into an FX Exchange- Traded Instrument on a U.S. exchange. The terms "Released Parties," "FX Instruments," and "FX Exchange- Traded Instruments" are defined in the detailed Notice of Class Action Settlements ("Notice") and each of the Settlement Agreements, which are available at www.FXAntitrustSettlement.com. If you are not sure if you are included in one of the Settlement Classes, you can get more information, including the detailed Notice, at www.FXAntitrustSettlement.com or by calling toll-free 1-888-582-2289 (if calling from outside the United States or Canada, call 1-330-333-7253). Will I get a payment? If you are a member of one of the Settlement Classes and do not opt out, you will be eligible for a payment under the settlements if you file a Proof of Claim and Release ("Claim Form"). The Settlements and Plan of Distribution have been preliminarily but not finally approved by the Court. You also may obtain a copy of the Settlements and Plan of Distribution at www.FXAntitrustSettlement.com or by calling toll-free 1-888-582- 2289 (if calling from outside the United States or Canada, call 1- 330-333-7253). Claim Forms must be postmarked by March 22, 2018 or submitted online at www.FXAntitrustSettlement.com on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on March 22, 2018. What are my rights? If you are a member of one of the Settlement Classes and do not opt out, you will release certain legal rights against Settling Defendants and other Released Parties, as explained in the detailed Notice and Settlement Agreements, which are available at www.FXAntitrustSettlement.com. If you do not want to take part in the proposed Settlements, you must opt out by February 7, 2018. You may object to the proposed Settlements, the Plan of Distribution, and/or Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees or expenses. If you want to object, you must do so by February 7, 2018. Information on how to opt out or object is contained in the detailed Notice, which is available at www.FXAntitrustSettlement.com. Even if you did not transact any FX Instruments with any of the Settling Defendants, you may be a member of one of the Settlement Classes if, between January 1, 2003 and December 15, 2015, you entered into an FX Instrument with Non-Settling Defendant or you entered an FX Exchange-Traded Instrument; such transactions are eligible for making a claim under the Settlements, provided that you are either domiciled in the United States or, if you are domiciled outside the United States, your transaction occurred in the United States. Unless you opt out of the Settlements, you will be releasing all claims against Settling Defendants and other Released Parties in connection with your trades with both Settling Defendants and Non-Settling Defendant. You will not be releasing any claims against Non-Settling Defendant. When is the Fairness Hearing? The Court will hold a hearing at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007, on May 23, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. Eastern time to consider whether to approve the proposed Settlements, the Plan of Distribution, and Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses. You or your lawyer may ask to appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense, but you do not have to. For more information, call toll-free 1-888-582-2289 (if calling from outside the United States or Canada, call 1-330-333-7253) or visit www.FXAntitrustSettlement.com. Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for information about the settlements. BANK OF AMERICA: Failed to Correct Credit Reports, Lawsuit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that Bank of America has been hit with a proposed class action accusing it of violating federal laws by failing to properly investigate when consumers dispute the mortgage payment information it reports to credit bureaus. Filed on October 6 in Roanoke, Virginia federal court, the lawsuit said the bank "does not conduct a substantive review of any sort" when consumers point out errors, but leaves damaging material on credit reports that can hurt their ability to get loans. [GN] BANK OF NAPA: Faces "Parshall" Suit in N.D. of California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of Napa, N.A. The case is styled as Paul Parshall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bank of Napa, N.A., Malcolm A. Mackenzie, Dick Anderson, Steve Barlow, Greg Bennett, Jeff Gerlomes, Kathleen Lucier, Stephen Orndorf, Kelly Solomon, Anthony Torres, Bank of Marin Bancorp and Bank of Marin, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-05773-RS (N.D. Cal., October 6, 2017). The Bank of Napa, Napa's only locally owned bank, has been acquired by the parent company of Bank of Marin. The deal, worth $51 million, is scheduled to close by Nov. 30.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kip Brian Shuman, Esq. The Shuman Law Firm 885 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 Tel: (303) 861-3003 Fax: (303) 484-4886 Email: Kip@shumanlawfirm.co BASALITE CONCRETE: Faces "Carrozzella" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Basalite Concrete Products, LLC. The case is styled as Thereasa Carrozzella, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Basalite Concrete Products, LLC and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2017-00220214-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., October 6, 2017). Basalite Concrete Products, LLC manufactures and supplies concrete masonry products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. Aiwazian Law Firm 410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 BASF CORP: Violates Off-the-Clock Provision of FLSA, Parker Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LATOYA PARKER, Individually, and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. BASF CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-00250-JM (E.D. Ark., September 21, 2017), asserts claims for "off-the-clock" and overtime violations pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. BASF Corporation is a Delaware Corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Wilmington, Delaware. BASF manufactures and supplies basic chemicals and intermediates ranging from solvents, plasticizers, and monomers to glues and electronic chemicals, as well as raw materials for detergents, plastics, textile fibers, paints and coatings, plant protection, and pharmaceuticals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. Paul R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com BAYER U.S.: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Douglas Says ------------------------------------------------------------ DAKOTA M. DOUGLAS on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BAYER U.S. LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, BAYER CORPORATION, an Indiana Corporation, BAYER BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY SERVICE, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG-17878626 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 12, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages due to Defendants' systematic and willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt employee working in the State of California beginning on March 26, 2013. When Plaintiff applied for employment with Defendants, Defendants performed a background investigation on Plaintiff. Defendants did not provide legally compliant authorization and disclosure forms to Plaintiff and the putative class. Bayer U.S. is a subsidiary of Bayer AG, a global enterprise with core competencies in the fields of healthcare, agriculture and high-tech polymer materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Scott Leviant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888 7771 Facsimile (310) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com scott@setarehlaw.com BERIOZKA REST: "Shulepov" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under Labor Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIKHAIL SHULEPOV, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BERIOZKA D/B/A CHINAR RESTAURANT, REST. CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 151038/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 12, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime wages, "spread of hours" compensation, and gratuities, wrongfully retained by Defendant, for work performed on behalf of Defendant by Named Plaintiff and other members of the putative class pursuant to the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Chinar as a bus person from January 2013 until July 2013. During his employment, Plaintiff typically worked approximately three days per week, each day starting from 12:00 PM to 6:00 AM, amounting to approximately 18 hours of work per day. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiff was paid approximately $120 per day. The Plaintiff did not receive overtime compensation of one and one half times his regular rate of pay when he worked over 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiff did not receive an additional one hour's pay at the minimum wage rate when he worked over 10 hours in a day. The Plaintiff and putative class members are food service employees, such as waiters, servicers and bus persons, and furnished labor to Defendant in furtherance of Defendant's restaurant and food service business. Chinar is an event venue and/or a restaurant and lounge located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Jack Newhouse, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com BLUE CROSS: Fails to Comply with Provisions of Assembly Bill 72 --------------------------------------------------------------- SAN LUIS IMAGING MEDICAL GROUP, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS; ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC679451 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 12, 2017), seeks injunction compelling Anthem to adopt and implement systems and procedures to comply with AB 72, a legal remedy which is not available under the independent dispute resolution process (IDRP) but explicitly preserved by AB 72. The case is a class action lawsuit arising out of defendants' failure to comply with provisions of Assembly Bill 72 ("AB 72"). That law requires health plans to pay non-contracting providers, such as Plaintiff, the greater of the average contracted rate or 125% of the Medicare fee-for-service reimbursement rate in connection with a covered person's stay at a contracted health facility. Defendants Blue Cross of California d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company have failed to develop arid implement claims processing procedures and systems necessary to comply with the law, resulting in the improper processing and underpayment of claims for thousands of non-contracting providers, at rates lower than the statutory amount. Anthem has failed to develop and implement the requisite claims processing procedures and systems despite the fact that AB 72 was signed by Governor Brown in September of 2016 and did not become effective until July 1, 2017.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Gianelli, Esq. Joshua S. Davis, Esq. Adrian J. Barrio, Esq. GIANELLI & MORRIS 550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 489 1600 Facsimile: (213) 489 1611 E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com - and - Don A. Ernst, Esq. Christopher Edgington, Esq. Taylor Ernst, Esq. ERNST LAW GROUP 1020 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Telephone: (805) 541 0300 Facsimile: (805) 541 5168 E-mail: dae@emstlawgroup.com ce@emstlawgroup.com te@emstlawgroup.com BOWLS LLC: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in Southern District of New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Bowls LLC. The case is styled as Richard Baldelli and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Bowls LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07675 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2017). The Bowls LLC is a six year-old company located in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. BRASKEM SA: Cohen Milstein Discloses Settlement of Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC regarding the In Re Braskem, S.A., Securities Litigation. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE BRASKEM, S.A., SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil Action No. 15-CV-5132-PAE SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED AMERICAN DEPOSITARY RECEIPTS ("ADR") OF BRASKEM, S.A. ("BRASKEM" OR THE "COMPANY") (TICKER SYMBOL: BAK) BETWEEN JULY 15, 2010 AND MARCH 11, 2015, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a proposed Settlement has been reached in this Action.1 A hearing will be held with respect to the Settlement on February 21, 2018 at 10 a.m. before the Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 706, New York, New York. The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things, whether the proposed Settlement of the securities class action claims asserted in this Action, pursuant to which Braskem, S.A., on behalf of all Defendants, will cause to be deposited into a Settlement Fund the sum of $10 million in exchange for the dismissal of the Action with prejudice and a release of claims against the Defendants and other Released Parties, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. If you purchased or otherwise acquired a legal or beneficial ownership interest in Braskem ADRs (ticker symbol: BAK) during the Class Period, you may be entitled to share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund if you submit a Proof of Claim Form no later than January 16, 2018, and if the information and documentation you provide in that Proof of Claim Form establishes that you are entitled to a recovery. This Summary Notice provides only a summary of matters regarding the Action and the Settlement. A detailed notice (the "Notice") describing the Action, the proposed Settlement, and the rights of Settlement Class Members to appear in Court at the Final Approval Hearing, to request to be excluded from the Settlement Class, and/or to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation and/or the request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, has been mailed to persons or entities known to be potential Settlement Class Members. You may obtain a copy of that Notice, a Proof of Claim Form, or other information at www.BraskemSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to the following address or calling the following telephone number. Braskem, S.A. Securities Litigation c/o GCG P.O. Box 10495 Dublin, Ohio 43017-4095 (855) 872-7076 Questions@BraskemSecuritiesSettlement.com If you are a Settlement Class Member, you have the right to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation and/or the request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses, or otherwise request to be heard, by submitting a written objection in accordance with the procedures described in the Notice. The objection must be filed no later than January 31, 2018 and served so that it is received no later than February 7, 2018. You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Class by submitting a written request for exclusion from the Class in accordance with the procedures described in the Notice. The request for exclusion must be received no later than January 22, 2018. If the Settlement is approved by the Court, you will be bound by the Settlement and the Court's Judgment, including the releases provided for in the Settlement and Judgment, unless you submit a request to be excluded. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed Notice referenced above and a Proof of Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff: Steven J. Toll Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Ave N.W. Suite 500, East Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com [GN] CANADA: 60s Scoop Settlement 'In Best Interest of Class Members --------------------------------------------------------------- Jillian Taylor, writing for CBC News, reports that a class-action lawyer is applauding the federal government's decision to give Sixties Scoop adoptees financial compensation. "I think it's a historic day," said Garth Myers, an associate with Koskie Minsky. "I think this settlement is a step in the right direction in terms of healing and reconciliation between Canada's Indigenous community and the country." The settlement comes out of an eight-year court battle on behalf of Ontario survivors. In February, an Ontario Superior Court judge found the federal government failed to prevent on-reserve children from losing their Indigenous identity after they were forcibly taken from their homes as part of what's known as the Sixties Scoop. Myers is representing a Manitoba class action, which was filed in April 2016. Koskie Minsky currently has three other class-action suits on behalf of Sixties Scoop adoptees including in Saskatchewan, Alberta and a national class excluding Ontario. There are around 18 outstanding class actions across the country. Myers said since the federal settlement is pan-Canadian, each outstanding class action will now apply for settlement approval rather than certification. "We think this settlement is certainly in best interest of all class members and I think they're getting benefits in the settlement that they can never get in court," said Myers. That includes a reported $50 million set aside for a new Indigenous Healing Foundation. "It's purpose is to enable change and reconciliation, in particular access to education, healing, wellness, and commemoration activities for communities and individuals," he said. Myers added he thinks compensation of up to $50,000 for each adoptee is fair. With an estimated 20,000 survivors across Canada, the settlement is said to be upwards of $800 million. "I'm grateful to the current government for their willingness to come forward and make such a generous offer to this class of vulnerable Indigenous people." In comparison, residential school survivors' compensation included a $10,000 "common experience payment, plus $3,000 for every year spent there. Survivors who were physically or sexually abused and filed IAP claims received additional payments averaging $111,000 including legal fees. 'That's where you really feel robbed' One survivor says it's not about money. "How do you get a cheque for $50,000 and say 'OK, well thanks,' you know, it's not about money," said Philip Paul-Martin, who was taken from his mother's arms in the hospital in 1972 and adopted out two years later. "I'm supposed to be grateful, that they took me and robbed me of a chance to know my family and cousins, speak my language," he said. He says he's one of the lucky one because he was able to reconnect with family in Attawapiskat First Nation. "I'm learning slowly, I've lived in my home community on three occasions, and walked the roads of my rez, knocked on my uncle's door and had tea with him, and you get home and you start to know your uncles and they start to leave, pass away, and that's where you really feel robbed." Sold as salvation, Sixties Scoop placed children in abusive system Paul-Martin says he understands that the Canadian legal system works through monetary compensation. "But you can't place a dollar value on who you are," he said. More details of the settlement are expected to be announced on October 6 morning. [GN] CHEMOURS COMPANY: Face Class Action Over GenX --------------------------------------------- Adam Wagner, writing for Star News Online, reports that a Wilmington man has filed a lawsuit against Chemours and DuPont alleging the chemical companies were negligent in their release of chemicals into the Cape Fear River. Filed on October 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the suit requests a jury trial and says Brent Nix represents a class potentially as large as 100,000 residents of the Lower Cape Fear area. Damages, according to the suit, are related to the discharges of various perfluorinated chemicals including GenX, causing the loss of value in properties in the area, the cost of mitigating contaminated water, the cost of diagnostic testing for diseases that may be caused by the chemicals and "annoyance, discomfort and inconvenience." Nix is requesting in excess of $5 million due, the court documents say, to the potentially large class size. "Defendants have negligently and otherwise acted to cause toxic chemicals to be released from the Fayetteville Works Site," the lawsuit alleges, "which then traveled to and contaminated and damaged the properties and household water supplies of Plaintiff and Class Members, and exposed them to toxic chemicals." A Chemours spokesman did not respond on October 6 to a request for comment about the lawsuit. The lawsuit draws connections between DuPont's activities with C8 near Parkersburg, West Virginia, and its manufacture beginning in 2001 of the same chemical at the Fayetteville Works plant about 100 miles up the Cape Fear River. When the company applied for a discharge permit allowing it to manufacture C8, the lawsuit alleges, it did not disclose proprietary health documents linking the chemical to severe health effects in humans and animals. In 2009, Chemours began manufacturing GenX at Fayetteville Works. That process must be, according to a consent agreement allowing the chemical's manufacture, a closed loop with no discharges. Chemours has insisted since early June that the process is a closed loop and any discharges are coming from a separate vinyl ether process that has been operating on the site in intermittent periods since 1980. "Defendants knew that (GenX was) created in that vinyl ethers process," the lawsuit alleges, "and that they were discharging (GenX) as a result of this process to the Cape Fear River since 1980." The lawsuit also alleges that leadership at the Fayetteville Works plant could have taken action to prevent the discharge. "Defendants knew the manufacturing processes at the Fayetteville Works Site were sources of discharges and releases of toxic (chemicals) into the Cape Fear River," the plaintiff's document says, "which was and is used as a drinking water supply for the people of Wilmington, North Carolina through the (Cape Fear Public Utility Authority), and knew that they were in fact discharging and releasing toxic (chemicals) into the Cape Fear River." During a meeting with local officials, Chemours employees said they installed mitigation technology to filter some GenX out of the water in 2013, but tests taken after that still showed levels above the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services' health goal of 140 parts per trillion set this summer. In addition, the lawsuit discusses the potential health effects of GenX, noting that DuPont has long been studying the chemical. According to the court document, DuPont's Haskell Laboratory for Health and Environmental Sciences submitted in April 2006 a 1963 study for health effects associated with GenX the company had performed on rats. "Documents submitted by the DuPont Defendants to U.S. EPA indicate that GenX has been associated with increased risk of health effects in laboratory animal studies, including risks of cancer, increased weight, changes to the immune system and cholesterol levels, fluctuations in size of kidneys and livers, cancerous tumors in liver, pancreas and testicles, and reproductive effects," the lawsuit alleges. "Such health effects are consistent with the health risks associated with toxic PFAS." A study of area cancer data conducted by N.C. DHHS in June showed no discernible trends in cancer's historically linked to C8 for a four-county region during a period ranging from 1996 to 2015. The data did indicate that New Hanover County's 20-year testicular cancer rate was higher than the state average. The lawsuit only mentions CFPUA customers, not any utilities in Brunswick or Pender counties. Nix is represented by the office of Durham attorney James Scott Farrin and The Hannon Law Firm of Denver, Colorado. In late September, the law firm associated with Erin Brockovich announced via a letter to potential clients that it is no longer investigating GenX because of a lack of available scientific evidence linking the chemical to health effects. [GN] CINEMEX USA: Collective Action Cert. Sought in "Gutierrez" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JORGE GUTIERREZ v. CINEMEX USA REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a CMX BRICKELL, CINEMEX HOLDINGS USA, INC., CINEMEX USA ENTERPRISES, INC., and LUIS CASTELAZO, Case No. 1:17-cv-23311-KMM (S.D. Fla.), seeks collective-action certification of this class of similarly situated persons ("216(b) Class Members"): All persons who worked at the CMX Brickell theater as servers and/or bartenders during the three (3) years preceding this lawsuit and who earned less than the applicable minimum and/or overtime wage for one or more weeks. Mr. Gutierrez initiated the action on August 31, 2017, seeking damages for him and the 216(b) Class Members for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Gutierrez also moves for an order (i) directing the Defendants to produce to undersigned counsel within 20 days a list containing the names and last known addresses of putative 216(b) Class Members, who worked for Defendants during the last three years, and (ii) authorizing his counsel to send a notice to all individuals, whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendants' counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iso6Kr5g The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6800 Facsimile: (305) 358-6808 E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com CRESTWOOD, IL: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Red Light Camera --------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Knowles and Ann Pistone, writing for ABC 7 Chicago, reports that Illinois motorists are fighting a red light camera intersection in a class action lawsuit filed on October 5. The lawsuit filed by angry motorists alleges that south suburban Crestwood is breaking the law with its use of red light cameras at a questionable intersection the I-Team recently investigated. "We are seeking to void out approximately 56,000 red light camera tickets issued, generating $3.1 million for the village," said attorney Tom Zimmerman. Three motorists and the group Abolish Red Light Cameras filed a class action lawsuit against the village of Crestwood over the intersection at the corner of Cicero Avenue and Cal Sag Road. They want refunds for those 56,000 tickets, claiming there is no stop lights for drivers to see when they drive through the designated right hand turn lane. Crestwood officials said drivers could see the light to the left, across the street. "Cities are suffering and so they are using the faulty system to collect revenue from citizens," said Bob Fioretti, Esq. attorney and former Chicago alderman. At 10 p.m. the I-Team has more from the safety expert who analyzed the intersection. He spoke exclusively to the I-Team about why he said the designated right-hand turn lane needs its own light if drivers are expected to stop. The I-Team also has more from the Illinois Department of Transportation, and why it says the intersection meets federal guidelines, and why the village of Crestwood says that the red light camera at that intersection is fair. [GN] CRUISE WEB: Alloways Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- AMY ALLOWAYS, MISCHELE HIGGINSON and CHRISTY MCGHEE, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Employees v. THE CRUISE WEB, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-02811-PJM (D. Md., September 21, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Cruise Web, Inc., is an incorporated for-profit business that maintains its principal corporate office in Calverton, Maryland. The Defendant is a travel agency that specializes in planning cruises. The Defendant arranges travel accommodations with various cruise lines and receives a predetermined fee from each reservation made through its services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq. Joseph E. Spicer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244-7005 Facsimile: (410) 244-8454 E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com jspicer@nicholllaw.com DENTSPLY SIRONA: Johnson Fistel Starts Investigation ---------------------------------------------------- Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential violations of the federal securities laws by DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. (NASDAQ: XRAY) ("Dentsply") and certain of its officers. DENTSPLY designs, develops, manufactures, and markets various dental and oral health products, and other consumable healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market worldwide. On August 9, 2017, Dentsply announced earnings for the second quarter 2017 fell below expectations, and disclosed a SEC investigation "concerning the Company's accounting and disclosures, including its accounting and disclosures relating to transactions with a significant distributor of the Company." Then on October 2, 2017, Dentsply disclosed that its chief executive officer, executive chairman, and president, tendered their resignations. On October 3, 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported the Company's board forced these executives out. If you have information that could assist in this investigation, including past employees and others, or if you are a Dentsply shareholder and are interested in learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonfistel.com --. If emailing, please include a phone number. About Johnson Fistel Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Jim Baker, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] DIAMOND WIPES: Williams Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------- SHASTA WILLIAMS, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIAMOND WIPES INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No. BC67931S (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 12, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under California Business and Professions Code, Labor Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee, who also earned non- discretionary bonuses, commission and/or other forms of compensation not excludable as a matter' of law when calculating an employee's regular rate of pay. Plaintiff was, and is, victim of Defendants' policies and/or practices, lost money and/or property, and has been deprived of the rights guaranteed by California Labor Code. Diamond Wipes International, Inc. designs and manufactures hot and cold disposable wet wipes for consumer and industrial applications in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Burrows, Esq. BURROWS LAW FIRM 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 526 9998 Facsimile: (424) 644 2446 E-mail: cburrows@cburrowslaw.com - and - NOVAK LAW FIRM, P.C. Sean M. Novak, Esq. 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (323) 424 4313 Facsimile: (323) 424 4357 E-mail: smn@novaklawfirm.com EL PUERTO: Faces "Mondragon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Ipolita Espinoza Mondragon, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. El Puerto De Acapulco Bar Restaurant Inc. d/b/a El Puerto de Acapulco Bar & Restaurant, Gonzalo Javier Campis, and Jose Antonio Campis, Case No. 1:17-cv-05613 (E.D.N.Y., September 26, 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 located at 9316 A 37th Ave, Jackson Heights, NY 11372. [BN] Ipolita Espinoza Mondragon is a pro se plaintiff. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: County Also Sues Drug Manufacturers ------------------------------------------------------- Tom Giambroni, writing for Salem News, reports that Drug manufacturers are being added to the lawsuit filed on behalf of Columbiana County commissioners against drug distributors. Commissioners on October 4 adopted a resolution amending their lawsuit to include drug manufacturers as well as distributors, which was done on the advice of attorney John Lancione, whose Cleveland-area law firm is serving as the board's local counsel in the federal class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of numerous counties in Ohio and adjoining states. The lawsuit was filed against three major drug wholesalers responsible for distributing 85 percent of all prescription opioid painkillers to doctors and pharmacies. The lawsuit alleges these companies contributed to the "public health and safety crisis" created by the opioid problem "by refusing to abide by federal regulations specifically designed to prevent the diversion of prescription opioids into the illicit market." In doing so, these distributors dumped millions of prescription opiates into communities across the county. Commissioner Mike Halleck said after the meeting they received an email on October 3 from Lancione advising them to add prescription opiate manufacturers based on what occurred in July, when it was announced that a $35 million settlement had been reached between the U.S. Justice Department and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals. The drug manufacturer was accused of failing to report large quantities of oxycodone pills that ended up being diverted to black markets in Florida. After reviewing the allegations and the settlement, Halleck said the law firm concluded drug manufacturers contributed to the opioid crisis by violating federal reporting requirements and often working together with distributors. [GN] EPIC SYSTEMS: SC Considers Viability of Waivers ----------------------------------------------- Brian Morris, writing for National Law Review, reports that on October 2, 2017, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Epic Systems v. Lewis, which considers the import of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) on the enforceability of class action waivers under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). According to some estimates, approximately 25 million employees are covered by arbitration agreements that prohibit class actions or other joint proceedings. Thus, the Supreme Court's decision is likely to have a significant impact on employment and labor relations throughout the country. Summary of Oral Argument Questioning during oral argument hinted at a divide down ideological lines. In one interesting exchange, Justice Breyer appeared to tip his hand: The [NLRA] protects the worker when two workers join together to go into a judicial or administrative forum for the purpose of improving working conditions, and the employers here all said, we will employ you only if you promise not to do that. . . .That's the argument against you. . . . . I haven't seen a way that you can, in fact, win the case . . . . without undermining and changing radically what has gone back to the New Deal, that is, the interpretation of Norris-LaGuardia and the NLRA. Notably, Justice Gorsuch (perhaps following the example of his quiet and contemplative colleague Justice Thomas) did not ask a single question during argument. Substantively, the Court focused on the nature of the right protected by Section 7 of the NLRA. According to Petitioners, Section 7 protects employees' right to decide to bring class or representative actions. However, it does not govern the rules applicable in the judicial or arbitral forum. As Petitioners characterized it, the "Section 7 right . . . gets you to the courthouse, it gets you to the Board, it gets you to the arbitrator. . . . . But once you're there you're subject to the rules." Framed this way, the arbitration agreement merely operates "to set the rules for the forum of arbitration when you get there." Just like an employer can contest the appropriateness of class proceedings based on failure to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 (e.g., numerosity, commonality, etc.) without running afoul of the NLRA, it can also do so based on the existence of a bilateral arbitration agreement. In contrast, Respondents contended that Section 7 prohibits employer interference with concerted activities, including requiring an employee to sign an agreement that precludes class proceedings in all forums. Justice Alito seemed skeptical of this formulation, appearing to find scant substantive distinction between enforcing an agreement precluding class proceedings and a procedural limitation on employees' ability to engage in collective litigation. Justice Kagan attempted to address Justice Alito's skepticism, stating: Section 7 doesn't extend to the ends of the Earth. If there are three employees who go out jointly rioting in the streets, they run up against antiriot laws and they go to jail just like everybody else. What Section 7 does and what Section 8 does is to establish a set of rules that deal with how employers can deal with employees. And one of the things that Section 7 and Section 8 say in concert, if you will, is that employers can't demand as conditions of employment the waivers of concerted rights. And that's all you're saying here. Justice Kennedy, the Court's most frequent swing vote, suggested that class waivers may not significantly impact employees' ability to collectively enforce employment rights. Justice Kennedy presented the following scenario: [T]hree people . . . . can[] go to the same attorney and say please represent us, and we will share our information with you, we have three individual arbitrations, but you represent all three of us, they can do that . . . . [T]hat is collective action. . . . [T]hey are proceeding concertedly. They have a single attorney. They are presenting their case. It is going to be decided maybe in three different hearings . . . . [M]any of the advantages of concerted action can be obtained by going to the same attorney. Sure, the cases are considered individually . . . . While the availability of one method of collective employee action would not normally render valid a mandatory waiver of another, Respondents did not contend that employees were entitled to bring class proceedings in court. Respondents embraced the more modest proposition that so long as "joint legal action is available in one forum, that would be sufficient." To the surprise of many, General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Richard Griffin, agreed that an arbitration provision that selects an arbitral forum that renders class proceedings onerous, if not impossible, would be enforceable. This is illustrated in the following colloquially with Chief Justice Roberts: Chief Justice Roberts: Let's say . . . . the rules of the arbitral forum says you can proceed individually, but you . . . . proceed collectively, but only if the class represents more than 50 people. Is that all right under your theory? MR. GRIFFIN: That's a rule of the arbitral forum, and the employee takes the rules of the forum as they find them. . . . . CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: The arbitral forum has rules, just like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. And what you're saying is . . . once you get into federal court, of course you've got to follow the rules of the forum. And we have arbitral forums as well. MR. GRIFFIN: And I'm saying those rules are equivalent, that . . . the employee takes the rules of the forum as they find them. What is prohibited [] under the National Labor Relations Act is an agreement by the employer that's imposed that limits the employee's right to take the rules . . . So it would be okay if the forum said that. Justice Alito highlighted that a decision adopting the rule advanced by the General Counsel would be pyrrhic victory for the NLRB. "[I]f that's the rule, you have not achieved very much because, instead of having an agreement that says . . . no class action, no class arbitration, you have an agreement requiring arbitration before the XYZ arbitration association, which has rules that don't allow class arbitration." The Board's General Counsel appears to have belatedly recognized the import of his concession at oral argument. On October 4, Griffin sent a letter to the Court correcting the position he articulated at oral argument, writing: "I am writing to correct an inaccurate response I gave at oral argument in response to the line of questioning from Chief Justice Roberts . . . My responses, to the extent they indicated any difference from the responses given by employees' counsel, Mr. Ortiz, to the questions of Chief Justice Roberts . . . were a result of my misunderstanding the Chief Justice's questions and were inaccurate; Mr. Ortiz correctly stated the Board's position and there is no disagreement between the Board's and the employees' position on the answers to those questions." The above summary just scratches the surface of the October 2 oral argument. Not only did the Court and parties contemplate the issues above, they discussed a variety of other topics, including whether class waivers are akin to "yellow dog" contracts, and the operation of the FAA's "savings clause." The Court's decision will have a significant impact on the enforceability of widely-used class action waivers and potentially pending class litigation. [GN] EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Dhuka" Suit for Not Protecting Credit Info -------------------------------------------------------------- IMTIYAZ DHUKA, ABUZAR DHUKKA, KEVIN PUTEGNAT, NYDIA PUTEGNAT, MUMTAZ MAREDIA, and IMTIAZ MAREDIA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. EQUIFAX, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv- 00919-LY (W.D. Tex., September 21, 2017), is brought on behalf of millions of consumers in Texas against Equifax for failing to take basic measures to protect and maintain the confidentiality of their personal identification and credit information, and for failing to provide adequate notice to those consumers that their information had been stolen. Equifax Inc. is a Georgia corporation with its headquarters located in Atlanta, Georgia. Equifax is a consumer credit reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Benjamin King, Esq. REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP 1601 Elm St., Suite 4250 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 420-8900 E-mail: bking@rctlegal.com - and - R. Adam Swick, Esq. REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP 1301 S. Capital of Texas Hwy. Bldg. C, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 647-6100 E-mail: aswick@rctlegal.com - and - Andrew Kochanowski, Esq. Sarah L. Rickard, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 746-4068 E-mail: akochanowski@somerspc.com srickard@sommerspc.com EQUIFAX INC: Fails to Properly Protect PII, "Bakken" Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- BAKKEN, Keri; and SANCHEZ, Gustavo Carlo v. EQUIFAX, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-03676-LMM (N.D. Ga., September 21, 2017), alleges that the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and the class of consumers they seek to represent was compromised due to Equifax's acts and omissions and their failure to properly protect the PII. Equifax, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Equifax is one of three nationwide credit-reporting companies that track and rates the financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as information on everything from child support payments, credit limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer history.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ranse M. Partin, Esq. CONLEY GRIGGS & PARTIN 4200 Northside Parkway, NW Building One, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30327 Telephone: (404) 809-2591 Facsimile: (404) 467-1166 E-mail: ranse@conleygriggs.com - and - Vincent J. Esades, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C. 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (612) 338-4605 Facsimile: (612) 338-4692 E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com - and - K. Scott Wagner, Esq. KERKMAN WAGNER & DUNN 839 North Jefferson Street, Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 277-8200 Facsimile: (414) 277-0100 E-mail: swagner@kwdlaw.com - and - Eric Pavlack, Esq. PAVLACK LAW LLC 225 North Alabama Street, Suite 301 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 251-1100 Facsimile: (317) 252-0352 E-mail: eric@pavlacklawfirm.com - and - G. John Cento, Esq. CENTO LAW, LLC 5915 North College Avenue, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46220 Telephone: (765) 280-3272 E-mail: cento@centolaw.com EQUIFAX INC: "Williams" Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ Carl Williams, in behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Credit Information Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02803, (D. Md., September 20, 2017), seeks compensatory, statutory, treble and punitive damages, costs of suit including the costs of notice of class action certification and judgment, and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from invasion of privacy and violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as information on everything from child support payments, credit limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license numbers and credit card numbers. Williams claims to be a victim of the data breach. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Credit Information Services LLC are engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and dispersing information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties upon request. [BN] H. Vincent McKnight, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 1666 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202)499-5200 Facsimile: (202)499-5199 Email: vmcknight@sanfordheisler.com - and - Kevin Sharp, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 611 Commerce St., Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434-7001 Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com - and - Jeremy Heisler, Esq. Andrew Melzer, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 1350 A venue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 Tel: (646) 402-5650 Fax: (646) 402-5651 Email: amelzer@sanfordheisler.com EQUIFAX INC: Ogburn Sues in Virginia Alleging FCRA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN OGBURN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EQUIFAX INC., and EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00644-JAG (E.D. Va., September 21, 2017), alleges violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, and the Virginia Personal Information Breach Notification Act. Equifax acknowledges that, between May 2017 and July 2017, it was the subject of a data breach in which unauthorized individuals accessed Equifax's database and the names, Social Security numbers, addresses, and other Personal Identifying Information ("PII") stored therein. According to Equifax, the Data Breach affected as many as 143 million people. Equifax admits that it discovered the unauthorized access on July 29, 2017, but failed to alert the Plaintiff and the Class to the fact of the breach until September 7, 2017, according to the complaint. Equifax Inc. is a multi-billion dollar corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. The Company provides credit information services to millions of businesses, governmental units, and consumers across the globe. Equifax Information Services, LLC, is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business located in Atlanta.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grant Morris, Esq. Andrew Melzer, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 1666 Connecticut NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 499-5210 Facsimile: (202) 499-5199 E-mail: gmorris@sanfordheisler.com amelzer@sanfordheisler.com EQUIFAX INC: Michigan CUNA Joins Lawsuit After Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Amber Ainsworth, writing for Click on Detroit, reports that the Michigan Credit Union League joined the class action lawsuit on October 4 that the Credit Union National Association filed against Equifax after a recent data breach. CUNA filed the lawsuit on October 4, and MCUL joined the lawsuit on behalf of Michigan credit unions. More than 145 million consumers were impacted by the data breach. Compromised information includes Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and driver's license numbers. "We filed this lawsuit because our member credit unions are very concerned with the effects of this breach -- everything from re- issuing compromised cards to adding uncertainty to the loan underwriting process," CUNA President and CEO Jim Nussle said. "Credit unions will bear substantial costs dealing with the fallout from this breach, and this lawsuit is a step toward recouping those costs." MCUL said credit unions will suffer long-term harm. Credit unions will have to cancel and reissue compromised credit and debit cards, reimburse members for fraudulent charges, increase fraud monitoring, mitigate identity theft and deal with reputation harm, according the MCUL. [GN] FINANCIAL AMERICAN: Faces "O'Donnell" Suit in S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial American Holdings Corporation. The case is styled as Sheela K. O'Donnell, individually and as class representative, Plaintiff v. Financial American Holdings Corporation, Financial American Life Insurance Company and Manuel Jacob Millor, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 23675-RNS (S.D. Fla., October 6, 2017). The Defendants offer life insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP 1625 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 320 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326 Tel: (866) 300-7367 Fax: (954) 515-0124 Email: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com FIRST NATIONAL: "Day" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Gregory Day, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. First National Credit Bureau Inc., a foreign for profit corporation; and Pinnacle Credit Services LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 17-005520-CI, was removed on Oct. 12, 2017 from the 6th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-02397-CEH-JSS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell. First National Collection Bureau, Inc. is an agency that collects debt on behalf of a variety of creditor clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron M. Swift, Esq. LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER PA NORTHEAST PROFESSIONAL CENTER 3900 First St North, Suite 100 St Petersburg, FL 33703-6109 Telephone: (727) 327 3328 Facsimile: (727) 327 3305 E-mail: aswift@leavenlaw.com - and - James Matthew Gonzalez, Esq. Lauren M. Burnette, Esq. BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C. 450-106 State Road 13 N. Suite 326 St. Johns, FL 32259 E-mail: jgonzalez@bn-lawyers.com lburnette@bn-lawyers.com FRIENDLUM INC: "Sandoval" Sues Over TCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------- Rene Sandoval, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Friendlum, Inc. (d/b/a Direct Home Energy Solutions) Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01917, (S.D. Cal., September 20, 2017), seeks damages, injunctive relief and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and invasion of Plaintiff's privacy. Sandoval received a telephone call on his cellular telephone from Defendants using an automatic telephone dialing system where an agent requested to set an appointment with her supervisor to discuss home energy solutions. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. Kevin Lemieux, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26 Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com kevin@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: KSF Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until November 27, 2017 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Frontier Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:FTR), if they purchased the Company's securities between April 1, 2016, and May 2, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. What You May Do If you purchased securities of Frontier and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email ( -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com --), or visit http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ftr/to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by November 27, 2017. About the Lawsuit Frontier and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On February 27, 2017, Frontier revealed a Q4 2016 net loss of $80M from the "resolution of nonpaying acquired CTF accounts," an account cleanup process since July 20, 2016 related to its April 2016 purchase of Verizon Communications operations in California, Texas and Florida. On May 2, 2017, Frontier reported a $75M Q1 2017 net loss and a Q1 revenue decline of $53M by year, including $16M from CTF non-paying accounts and automation of legacy non-pay disconnects. On this news, the price of Frontier's shares plummeted. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. [GN] GEORGIA: Sheriff Indicted After Body Searches of Students --------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Swenson, writing for Washington Post, reports that a Georgia grand jury indicted Sheriff Jeff Hobby and two deputies for their part in a Worth County High School high school raid. The sound system squawked at 8 a.m., just as the school day was revving up at Worth County High School. The campus was now on lockdown, the announcement said. Neither the teachers nor students at the south Georgia school knew what was going on. For the next four hours, 40 uniformed officers -- the entire staff of the Worth County Sheriff's Office -- fanned through the school in Sylvester, ordering students against the walls of classrooms and hallways, demanding the students hand over their cellphones. All 900 students were searched, part of a drug sweep ordered by Sheriff Jeff Hobby, according to court documents. He did not have a warrant. He had a "target list" of 12 suspected drug users. Only three of the names were in school that day, April 14. By noon, when cellphones were handed back and classes resumed, no drugs had been found. The sheriff's full-court press, however, would yield legal consequences -- for Hobby and his office. In the days following the sweep, students came forward charging they had been inappropriately groped and manhandled by deputies. A class-action federal civil suit followed. And now, a grand jury indicted Hobby and two deputies for their part in the high school raid. Hobby faces charges of sexual battery, false imprisonment, and violation of oath of office, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "The sheriff's position is that he's not guilty," Hobby's attorney, Norman Crowe Jr., told the news outlet. The sheriff was at the school for the raid but personally did not touch students, the lawyer maintained. "He's committed no crime." The search brought unwanted national attention on the department. As the controversy broke, Hobby gave an off-camera interview to WALB in which he said the searches were legal because school administrators were present. In a statement released on April 18, Hobby elaborated that in "the weeks leading up to April 14, the Sheriff's Office received information and complaints from the citizens of Worth County regarding illegal drugs at the high school. The Sheriff contacted the Superintendent of the Worth County School District and the Principal of the high school to inform them of the situation and the Principal and the Sheriff agreed on the day of the pat down." School officials, however, have countered the idea they were willing participants in om Hobby's plans. "We did not give permission but they didn't ask for permission," Interim Worth County Superintendent Lawrence Walters told WALB after the raid. "He just said, the sheriff, that he was going to do it after spring break." "I don't think anybody in the school system had any idea that it would be of the nature of what actually happened," Tommy Coleman, a lawyer for the school district, told The Washington Post in June. "I've been doing this a long time, and I've never heard of anybody doing that kind of thing." The class-action lawsuit -- filed on behalf of nine unnamed students -- laid out detailed allegations of groping during the school search. One student recounted that a deputy "looked down the back and front" of the student's dress, then "slid her hands" over her pelvic area and "cupped" the student's "vaginal area and buttocks," according to the legal complaint. Another male student recounted a deputy "moving his fingers back and forth" from his pockets to his groin, the lawsuit stated. The deputy's fingertips touched the student's "penis and testicles, over clothes, four to five times." A third student recounted how a deputy "reached up under" her shirt, "lifted her bra, and touched her bare breasts, including her nipples." In June, when the lawsuit was filed, one of the teenagers recounted his ordeal to The Post. The deputy "came up under my privates and then he grabbed my testicles twice," the student said. "I wanted to turn around and tell him to stop touching me. I wanted it to be over and I just wanted to call my dad because I knew something wasn't right." Following the outcry, Hobby acknowledged in his April statement that "one of the deputies had exceed the instructions given by the Sheriff and conducted a pat down of some students that was more intrusive than instructed." The sheriff said "corrective action" was taken -- but the office has not publicly offered further detail. The grand jury indicted two deputies along with the sheriff: Tyler Turner faces one felony count of violation of oath of office and one misdemeanor count of sexual battery. Deidra Whiddon was indicted on one count of violation of oath of office. Local prosecutors also announced copies of the indictment would be sent to Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, who has the legal authority to suspend Hobby. The Journal-Constitution reported the Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Council has already suspended the law enforcement certifications of Hobby and his deputies. [GN] GOOGLE INC: Suit Alleging Women Paid Less Speeded Up by Judge ------------------------------------------------------------- Ethan Baron, writing for Silicon Beat, reports that a lawsuit by three women alleging Google has a "sexist culture" and systematically pays women less than men has been speeded up, with a legal designation that paves the way for it to become a class action. The three ex-Googlers claim in the suit filed in September that the Mountain View search giant "segregates" women into lower- paying jobs and career tracks while men with equivalent qualifications race ahead. Plaintiff Kelly Ellis said in the lawsuit that she had quit the firm after about four years because of "the sexist culture at Google." Get tech news in your inbox weekday mornings. Sign up for the free Good Morning Silicon Valley newsletter. The other plaintiffs are Holly Pease and Kelli Wisuri. Google is also faced with a federal probe from the Labor Department, which has claimed "extreme" pay discrimination against women at the company. Google has denied that claim and said it pays women equally to men. Now, a judge of the California Superior Court in San Francisco has designated the women's lawsuit a "complex case," which prepares the suit to become a class action. Judge Mary Wiss also speeded up the timeline for the case, moving the case-management conference to Oct. 26 from February 14. Google declined to comment on the latest development in the case, but it has said it disagrees with the "central allegations" of the suit. "Job levels and promotions are determined through rigorous hiring and promotion committees, and must pass multiple levels of review, including checks to make sure there is no gender bias in these decisions," company spokeswoman Gina Scigliano said in an earlier statement. "And we have extensive systems in place to ensure that we pay fairly. But on all these topics, if we ever see individual discrepancies or problems, we work to fix them." The new designation as "complex," which came in an Oct. 2 order, indicates that the court will be "actively supervising" the case, and it was given because suit seeks class-action status and will involve many witnesses, said the plaintiffs' lawyer James Finberg. The three women seek to bring into the lawsuit all women who worked at Google for the four years leading up to mid-September. [GN] GOVERNMENT PAYMENT: Miner Renews Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL J. MINER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOVERNMENT PAYMENT SERVICE, INC., d/b/a GOV PAY NET, Case No. 1:14-cv-07474 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to certify this class: All residents of the State of Illinois who paid a bail deposit with a credit or debit card and who were charged a fee by GovPayNet for purported bail bond services during the period September 25, 2009, through the date of final judgment. Excluded from the Class are the Defendant and any of its officers, directors or employees, Class counsel, the presiding judge, named plaintiffs in any substantially similar actions and members of their immediate families. The Plaintiff reserves his right to amend the class definition based on discovery and the proofs at trial. This second renewed motion for class certification is a renewal of the Plaintiff's prior renewed motion for class certification and made pursuant to the Court's leave in its Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 5, 2017. Mr. Miner also asks the Court to designate him as representative of the Class and his counsel as Class counsel. * * * The Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., has stricken as moot the Plaintiff's previous motion to certify class; as it superseded by his present renewed motion to certify class, which is entered and continued generally. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qDMyU8vG A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jkMBM1U5 The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Sweetnam, Esq. SWEETNAM LLC 100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 757-1888 E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com - and - Larry D. Drury, Esq. LARRY D. DRURY, LTD. 100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 346-7950 E-mail: ldd@larrydrury.com - and - Joseph L. Planera, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH L. PLANERA AND ASSOCIATES 222 Vollmer Road, Suite 2A Chicago Heights, IL 60411 Telephone: (708) 755-5000 E-mail: jplanera@sbcglobal.net HEALTH INSURANCE: Expanded Class Period in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. to the recently filed securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the expanded class period, and to the November 10, 2017 Lead Plaintiff deadline. If you purchased or otherwise acquired securities of HIIQ during the expanded class period -- between March 4, 2016 and September 11, 2017 -- and suffered losses contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. For more information visit: or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing -- HIIQ@hbsslaw.com --. On September 11, 2017, SeekingAlpha published a contributor's report entitled "Health Insurance Innovations: Penalties To Exceed $100 Million And Undisclosed 'Domino Effect'." The author reported, in part, on HIIQ's efforts in Florida to obtain a Certificate of Authority to act as a Third-Party Administrator and Florida's Office of Insurance Regulation ("OIR") June 1, 2017 determination that HIIQ's application should be denied. The author also quoted from the Company's petition to contest the OIR's decision: "The application denial would trigger a duty to report (and thus raise the specter of additional renewal denials) in [. . .] every state in which [HIIQ] would seek to pursue any form of insurance-related licensure in the future (thus raising the specter of a domino effect of denials that would have to be reported)" and "to say that the interests of [HIIQ] as an entity would be substantially affected is a radical understatement." This news drove the price of HIIQ shares down $6.55 to close at $23.75 on September 11, 2017 -- a loss of nearly 22%. "We're focused on the Company's apparent omissions related to its back and forth with the OIR and the relative importance of licensure in Florida to HIIQ's business as a whole," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding HIIQ should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the new 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 HIIQ@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman 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. More about the firm and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN] HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Rudel Seeks Prelim. OK of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled RUDEL CORPORATION, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-02229-AET-LHG (D.N.J.), moves for an order preliminarily approving the parties' proposed class settlement, and certifying this settlement class: Merchants who processed with Heartland and were subject to an American Express Fee Adjustment in their October 2014 account statements, retroactively implementing an increased American Express Discount Fee between the period of July 1, 2014 and October 31, 2014 and setting new American Express pricing going forward. The Plaintiff also seeks an order: 1. appointing Rudel Corporation as Class Representative; 2. appointing the law firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP as Class Counsel; 3. approving the proposed Notice to the class; and 4. entering the Preliminary Approval Order. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VADagShX The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq. Raymond N. Barto, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 Facsimile: (212) 421-6553 E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com raymond@sfclasslaw.com HEARTLAND PAYMENT: $2.5MM Class Action Settlement Gets Judge's OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a federal judge in Trenton has granted preliminary approval to a $2.5 million settlement in a class action claiming that Princeton- based Heartland Payment Systems charged its customers unauthorized fees to process American Express transactions. The suit was prompted by a $255 fee that Heartland charged in 2014 to the owners of Jacala Mexican Restaurant in San Antonio, the lead plaintiff, that was termed an "American Express Fee Adjustment." Approximately 80,000 merchants were charged similar fee adjustments by Heartland, and total revenue from the disputed fee increase was more than $7 million, discovery in the case revealed. The extra fee was imposed after Heartland sent Jacala and other merchants a letter promoting a reduced rate for processing American Express transactions. According to the suit, Heartland billed Jacala and other customers for what it characterized as a miscalculation of fees, but plaintiffs claimed it was, in fact, a rate increase that violated the defendant's contract with its customers. U.S. District Judge Anne Thompson gave the settlement preliminary approval and granted certification of the class on October 4. The class consists of merchants who processed credit cards with Heartland and "were subject to an American Express Fee Adjustment in their October 2014 account statements, retroactively implementing an increased American Express Discount Fee between the period of July 1, 2014 and October 31, 2014 and setting new American Express pricing going forward." A final approval hearing is set for Jan. 16, 2018. Heartland agreed not to oppose a fee award of $833,333 to plaintiff attorneys or a service award of $15,000 to Jacala, but those payments are still subject to approval by Thompson. In June 2014, Heartland began a promotion in which it promised merchants that they could process American Express transactions at the same rates it charged for processing Visa and MasterCard transactions, the suit claimed. The fee that was imposed several months later meant that Heartland charged customers a higher rate for processing American Express transactions than for processing MasterCard and Visa, contrary to its prior assertions, the suit claimed. The suit said Heartland's characterization of the fee increase as a "miscalculation" is a misrepresentation. And even if the purported miscalculation was a proper fee increase, it violated a provision of Heartland's contract with members requiring 15 days' notice before a fee change is implemented, the plaintiffs claimed. The suit brought claims of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and unjust enrichment. After Heartland moved to dismiss, Thompson dismissed the Consumer Fraud Act claim in August 2016 but declined to dismiss the remainder of the counts. Thompson ruled after finding that Jacala signed up with Heartland to accept American Express before the defendant sent out its letter promoting lower fees. The parties reached their agreement after two sessions of mediation with former U.S. District Judge William Bassler, now with FedArb in Red Bank. Thompson appointed Bassler as mediator in May. After an unsuccessful mediation, plaintiffs counsel made a motion to certify the class in June, and both parties moved for summary judgment. Before the motions were decided, the parties notified Thompson on Aug. 7 that they had reached an agreement after a second round of mediation before Bassler, according to the decision. Seth Lapidow of Backes & Hill in Lawrenceville, who represented Heartland, and Stephen Fearon of Squitieri & Fearon in New York, who represented the plaintiff and the class, did not return calls about the case. [GN] HONDA MOTOR: Reaches Settlements in Takata Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------- Eric T. Chaffin, writing for Legal Examiner, reports that automaker Honda recently agreed to a $605 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit in which plaintiffs sought economic damages for losses suffered as a result of Takata airbag defects. Honda was the automaker most affected by Takata airbag recalls, having implemented more of the products than other automakers. The agreement follows those already made between consumers and other automakers, including Nissan, Toyota, BMW, Mazda and Subaru. All of these companies will now be helping qualifying consumers to pay for airbag replacements. Funds Used to Reimburse Consumers for Airbag Replacement Costs According to a report in the USA Today, the funds from the Honda settlement will be used for a number of purposes. Current and former Honda owners may be eligible for payments of up to $500 apiece, and may have access to a free car rental so they can get the defective airbags in their Honda vehicles replaced. Other expenses, like transportation, towing, lost wages, and childcare costs, may also be reimbursed. In addition, some of the money will go toward another consumer- alert program to encourage Honda owners to get their vehicles repaired. Though about two-thirds of owners have had their Takata airbags replaced, there are still many more on the road with older, potentially defective airbags. These airbags may rupture upon deployment, sending small, sharp pieces of shrapnel into the interior of the vehicle. The driver and other vehicle occupants may suffer from knife-like wounds that can lead to life-threatening bleeding. So far, the airbags have been linked to about 18 deaths worldwide and nearly 200 injuries. The problem has resulted in the largest U.S. auto-related recall of all time. So far, more than 42 million vehicles are affected. The current Honda agreement covers 11.4 million vehicles that have already been recalled for defective Takata airbags, and 5.1 million more that may be recalled in the future. Five Other Automakers Reach Similar Settlements Nissan reached a similar settlement agreement in early August, again promising up to $500 in financial aid for qualifying consumers who need to get their airbags replaced, and promising reimbursement for things like rental car use, lost wages, and childcare costs. That agreement also included a new program to encourage more drivers to get their vehicles fixed. The settlement totaled $97.7 million. Settlements with Toyota, Subaru, BMW and Mazda, as well, have totaled $553 million. All include outreach programs to contact owners and increase the number of airbag repairs completed. Thousands of lawsuits have been filed against Takata for their alleged negligence in dealing with this issue, and federally-filed cases were consolidated in the Southern District of Florida in 2015. Though pre-trial proceedings are ongoing there, other lawsuits have been delayed because of Takata's bankruptcy filing. [GN] HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING: "Rowe" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Zabian Rowe, Plaintiff, v. Hospital Housekeeping Systems, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-09376 (E.D. La., September 19, 2017), is a collective action seeking overtime compensation for hours rendered in excess of forty hours per work week with corresponding liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and expenses of the litigation, prejudgment interest and any other further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hospital Housekeeping Systems (HHS) provides contracted services, including cleaning, laundry, and dietary services, to medical facilities such as hospitals and has contracts with several hospitals and medical facilities within Louisiana State and its District, including Tulane-Lakeside Hospital where Plaintiff was employed as a floor tech, stripping and waxing the hospital floors. On September 23, 2015, HHS presented Plaintiff with his time audit report and simultaneously fired him. Said report shows that HHS supervisors had, in fact, altered Plaintiff's time records after the fact and reduced 11 hours from his August 2015 paycheck, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Stiegler, Esq. STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC 6557 West End Blvd. New Orleans, LA 70124 Tel: (504) 267-0777 Fax: (504) 513-3084 Email: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com HSBC BANK: Faces Royal Park Suit in S.D. of New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HSBC Bank USA, National Association as Trustee. The case is styled as Royal Park Investments SA/NV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association as Trustee, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07684 (S.D. N.Y., October 6, 2017). HSBC Bank USA, N.A., the United States subsidiary of the HSBC Holdings plc, is a bank with its head office in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (LI) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com JCM DISTRIBUTORS: Law Office of Timothy Carl Blake Files Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JCM Distributors, LLC doing business as: JCM Copiers. The case is styled as Law Offices of Timothy Carl Blake, P.A., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JCM Distributors, LLC doing business as: JCM Copiers, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 23676-PAS (S.D. Fla., October 6, 2017). [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Richard Bennett, Jr., Esq. 1200 Anastasia Avenue Office 360 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 444-5925 Fax: (206) 333-0792 Email: richardbennett27@gmail.com - and - Joshua Aaron Glickman, Esq. Social Justice Law Collective, PL 6709 West 119th Street, #198 Overland Park, KS 66209 Tel: (913) 213-3064 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com - and - Peter Ashley Bennett, Esq. Bennett, Bennett Attorneys at Law 1200 Anastasia Ave, Suite #360 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 607-4261 Fax: (206) 333-6340 Email: peterbennettlaw@gmail.com - and - Shawn Alex Heller, Esq. 434 Skinner Blvd. APT 206 Dunedin, FL 34698 Tel: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: shawn@shawnheller.com L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: ERISA Class Suit Against Executives Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Colby Hamilton, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that another class action attempt by investors in aerospace and defense contractor L3 over the company's 2014 accounting fraud faced defeat on October 5. U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni of the Southern District of New York dismissed Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 claims against the company, finding, as she did in an earlier suit, that plaintiffs failed to allege plausible claims against the company's executives. In April 2016, Caproni ruled in Patel v. L-3 Communications Holdings, 14-cv-06038, that individual claims against L3 executives Michael Strianese and Ralph D'Ambrosio should be dismissed over a failure by plaintiffs to show, under the heightened securities fraud standards, the required scienter on behalf of defendants. While the suit was ultimately settled after other allegations went forward, Caproni noted that the new suit, Price v. Strianese 17- cv-00652, relied heavily on arguments made in the previous case, with "numerous" paragraphs copied "verbatim. Plaintiffs allege that the executives did or should have known that investing in the company's own stock ahead of the fraudulent accounting activity becoming known was imprudent. Caproni, referencing the two suits, said, "Price fares no better than Patel." Despite the more "generous" standards under an ERISA claim, plaintiff was unable to show that the two executives knew or should have known that the company's stock was inflated and therefore a bad bet. Caproni noted that the allegations rely "somewhat inexplicably" on a cease and desist order and nearly $2 million fine issued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in early 2017. A November 2013 whistleblower complaint about potential fraud -- the details of which are absent from both the SEC's actions and plaintiff's complaint -- led to an internal investigation by the company and, ultimately, the uncovering of the accounting fraud. According to Caproni, the failure to detail what that ethics complaint actually said, it was "particularly implausible to infer" that defendants knew about the accounting fraud based on the November 2013 ethics complaint "because, according to the SEC, the fraud did not occur until December 2013." Plaintiff likewise failed to allege that ERISA duty prudence claim. Halting stock purchases, as plaintiff suggests, could have done more harm than good, as it may have signaled problems inside the company. Issuing a statement could have similar dire consequences. Investment in a hedging product was likewise inadequately pleaded "because the description of the hedging product is simply too vague for the Court to conclude that it reflects a viable option." Simpson Thacher & Bartlett partners Michael Garvey and Paul Curnin led the defense for Strianese and D'Ambrosio. Through a spokesman they declined to comment. Counsel for the plaintiff, Zamansky LLC partner Sam Bonderoff said in a statement that, though they disagree with Caproni's dismissal, they intend to amended the complaint. "To the millions of American employees whose retirement savings are invested in employer stock plans, it is vitally important that the Supreme Court's 'more harm than good' standard be applied in a way that does not strip those employees of their statutory right to seek compensation from those plans' fiduciaries when those fiduciaries are derelict in their duties," Bonderoff said. [GN] LOS ANGELES, CA: Feb. 14 LADWP Settlement Approval Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- If You Were A Retail Electricity Customer Of The Los Angeles Department Of Water And Power from January 29, 2012 to September 14, 2017, This Class Action Settlement May Affect Your Rights A settlement has been reached with the City of Los Angeles (the "City"), the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power ("LADWP"), and the LADWP Board of Water and Power Commissioners (together, "Defendants") in a class action lawsuit claiming LADWP has embedded in its power (electric) rates an 8% surcharge in order to fund transfers to the City's Reserve Fund. The Plaintiffs claim that the 8% surcharge is a tax that has not been approved by the electorate, and thus violates California Constitution article XIII-C, section 2, subdivision (b) and/or (d), and Government Code sections 53722 and/or 53723. Defendants deny the allegations, and the Court has not decided who is right. Instead, the parties agreed to a settlement to avoid the expense and risk of continued litigation. Who is included? LADWP's records indicate you are included in the settlement as a Settlement Class Member. You are a Settlement Class Member if you, between January 29, 2012 and September 14, 2017, held a retail customer account with LADWP in which there was a charge for electricity. What can you get? The City has agreed to create a Settlement Fund, which is currently estimated to be Fifty-Two Million Dollars ($52,000,000). After administrative expenses, attorney's fees and expenses of up to 29% of the Settlement Fund, service awards in the amount of $5,000 to each of the four Class Representatives, and a $650,000 payment to non-profit charitable organization(s) are paid from the Settlement Fund, the balance will be distributed as a per kilowatt-hour credit to the electric rates of LADWP retail electricity customers. The City and LADWP have also agreed to deduct 8% from the amounts otherwise charged to LADWP retail electricity customers pursuant to its 2016 Electric Rate Ordinance and will no longer transfer any funds LADWP collects through the 2016 Electric Rate Ordinance to the City. Your options. If you do nothing, you are staying in the Settlement, your rights will be affected, and, if you are a LADWP retail electricity customer during the first billing period after the Settlement is finally approved by the Court, you will receive the benefits described above. If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself from it by December 27, 2017. Unless you exclude yourself, you will not be able to sue or continue to sue Defendants for any legal claim resolved by this Settlement and released by the Settlement Agreement. If you do not exclude yourself, you may object. Objections are due December 27, 2017. The Court's hearing. The Court will hold a hearing in this case (Eck v. The City of Los Angeles, No. BC577028) at 9:00 a.m. on February 14, 2018 at the Los Angeles Superior Court, Central Civil West Courthouse, 600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, California 90005. At this hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve: the Settlement; Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses; and service awards to the Class Representatives. You or your lawyer may appear at the hearing at your own expense. LULU FROST: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Lulu Frost, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv- 05607 (E.D.N.Y., September 26, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lulu Frost, Inc. owns and operates a jewelry store in New York City. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 Facsimile: (718) 504-7555 E-mail: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com MAJU PUNCAK: Meda Responds to Suit By Arc @ Cyberjaya Unit Owners ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Sunday Daily reports that Meda Inc. Bhd on October 6 told Bursa Malaysia it denies promising a fixed rental income of up to 25 years to 137 apartment owners who have initiated a class-action lawsuit against its wholly owned subsidiary, Maju Puncak Bumi Sdn Bhd (MPSB). MPSB is the developer of Arc @ Cyberjaya, a serviced apartment project. Meda said according to an option agreement between owners and MPSB to exercise their option for a guaranteed rate of return (GRR), there is a fixed term of three or four years (depending on the unit), and the option to renew the agreement for up to 20 years was on MPSB. "In fact, we have terminated the GRR scheme pursuant to the option agreement for majority of the units," it said. The class-action suit is claiming breach of contract in relation to the option agreement. The owners are claiming for RM3.97 million being the outstanding rentals up till May 2017; 8% interest on the outstanding rentals; agreed liquidated damages as stated in the agreement, general damages, and/or aggravated damages, as well as exemplary damages; 5% interest from the judgement till the full payment date; cost; vacant possession of the unit; and any relief deemed fit by the court. "We have already captured all the outstanding rentals amounting to RM 3.97 million, therefore, there is no financial impact in our books. Any further updates in respect of any material development of this case will be made from time to time," Meda said. [GN] MDL 2792: "Zamora" Suit v. Samsung Moved to W.D. Okla. Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Carolina M. Zamora, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., Samsung Electronics Co Ltd., The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers LLC, Best Buy Co. Inc., and Sears Holding Corporation, Case No. 7:17-cv-00154, was transferred on Oct. 12, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the District of Southern Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-01105-D to the proceeding. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics and digital products in the United States. The Zamora case is being consolidated with MDL 2792 in re: Samsung Top-Load Washing Machine Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 20, 2017. This transfer motion covers 24 putative class- action Complaints filed by forty plaintiffs in twenty separate federal districts concerning the same Samsung top-load washing machine models. The Complaints propose overlapping, and in many cases, identical, putative nationwide classes and/or multiple state classes. At center stage of each of these Complaints are allegations that these washers possess certain defects that manifest themselves during the spin cycle and pose a risk of harm to consumers and their property, as well as allegations concerning the damages that consequentially flow therefrom. The Complaints each claim that Defendants purportedly knew of the defects and concealed them from consumers while they continued to sell the machines. In its June 20, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions involved common questions of fact because the plaintiffs had "uniformly allege[d] that Dollar General fail[ed] to adequately warn that the products unsuitable for use," and the plaintiffs "in all the actions allege[d] similar claims for breach of warranties, unjust enrichment, and violation of various state consumer protection acts." In addition, despite the presence of common counsel, the Panel was persuaded by the fact that, "in each of these actions, [the plaintiffs] would seek to obtain the same documentary and testimonial evidence from defendants and third- party witnesses," as well as expert discovery. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti. The lead case is 5:17- ml-02792-D.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francisco J Enriquez 4200-B N Bicentennial McAllen, TX 78504 Telephone: (956) 686 5291 Facsimile: (956) 618 5064 - and - William B Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N Pennsylvania Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235 1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com MDL 2795: "Allison" Suit Transferred to Minnesota Federal Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Luke Roger Allison, individually and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. CenturyLink, Inc., a Louisiana corporation; CenturyLink Communications, LLC; doing business as: in Arizona as CenturyLink Communications, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CenturyLink Public Communications, Inc., doing business as: in Arizona as Century Link Public Communications, Inc., a Florida corporation; CenturyLink Sales Solutions, Inc., doing business as: in Arizona as CenturyLink Sales Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02162, was transferred on Oct. 12, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, to the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District of Minnesota (DMN). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-04613-MJD-KMM to the proceeding. CenturyLink, Inc. is an American telecommunications company, headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, that provides communications and data services to residential, business, governmental, and wholesale customers in 37 states. The Allison case is being consolidated with MDL 2795 in re: Centurylink Residential Customer Billing Disputes Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 5, 2017. The MDL Panel found these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of these cases will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions share factual questions arising from allegations that defendants, a family of telecommunications companies, have engaged in a range of deceptive or otherwise improper practices, such as billing subscribers for telephone lines or services that the subscribers did not request, billing subscribers higher rates than the rates quoted during sales calls, imposing early termination fees when subscribers cancelled the services due to the higher-than-quoted rates, charging for periods of service before the service was connected or products received, and failing to process subscribers' service cancellation requests in a timely manner. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other pretrial matters, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Michael J. Davis. The lead case is 0:17-md-02795-MJD-KMM.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq. Mark J Geragos, Esq. GERAGOS & GERAGOS 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 625 3900 E-mail: geragos@geragos.com geragos@geragos.com - and - Brian C Gudmundson, Esq. Hart L Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341 0400 Facsimile: (612) 341 0844 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com The Defendants are represented by: David A Vogel, Esq. Douglas P Lobel, Esq. COOLEY LLP 11951 Freedom Drive, Ste. 1500 Reston, VA 20190-5656 Telephone: (703) 456 8576 E-mail: dvogel@cooley.com dlobel@cooley.com - and - Gregory W Falls, Esq. Lindsay Hwa Schroeder Hesketh, Esq. SHERMAN & HOWARD LLC - PHOENIX, AZ 201 E Washington St., Ste. 800 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2327 Telephone: (602) 240 3000 Facsimile: (602) 240 6600 E-mail: gfalls@shermanhoward.com lhesketh@shermanhoward.com MDL 2795: "Hanifen" Suit Transferred into Minnesota Federal Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Mandi Hanifen, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. CenturyLink, Inc., a Louisiana corporation; CenturyTel of the Gem State, Inc., an Idaho corporation; CenturyTel of Idaho, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00267, was transferred on Oct. 12, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, to the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District of Minnesota (DMN). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-04616-MJD-KMM to the proceeding. CenturyLink, Inc. is an American telecommunications company, headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, that provides communications and data services to residential, business, governmental, and wholesale customers in 37 states. The Hanifen case is being consolidated with MDL 2795 in re: Centurylink Residential Customer Billing Disputes Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 5, 2017. The MDL Panel found these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of these cases will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions share factual questions arising from allegations that defendants, a family of telecommunications companies, have engaged in a range of deceptive or otherwise improper practices, such as billing subscribers for telephone lines or services that the subscribers did not request, billing subscribers higher rates than the rates quoted during sales calls, imposing early termination fees when subscribers cancelled the services due to the higher-than-quoted rates, charging for periods of service before the service was connected or products received, and failing to process subscribers' service cancellation requests in a timely manner. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other pretrial matters, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Michael J. Davis. The lead case is 0:17-md-02795-MJD-KMM.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq. Mark J Geragos, Esq. GERAGOS & GERAGOS 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 625 3900 E-mail: geragos@geragos.com geragos@geragos.com - and - Bonner Charles Walsh, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BONNER C. WALSH 21810 PINECREST DR. P.O. BOX 7 BLY, OR 97622 Telephone: (541) 359 2827 E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Douglas P Lobel, Esq. COOLEY LLP 11951 Freedom Dr, Ste. 1500 Reston, VA 20190-5656 Telephone: (703) 456 8019 E-mail: dlobel@cooley.com - and - Kelly Alfred Cameron, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1111 W. Jefferson St., Suite 500 Boise, ID 83702-5391 Telephone: (208) 343 3434 Facsimile: (208) 343 3232 E-mail: kcameron@perkinscoie.com MEADE RECOVERY: Hyer Sues in Utah Alleging Violations of FDCPA -------------------------------------------------------------- JARED HYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. MEADE RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00150- EJF (D. Utah, September 21, 2017), arises from the Defendant's attempts to unlawfully and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by the Plaintiff, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Meade Recovery is a corporation whose State of Incorporation and principal place of business is in the state of Utah. The Company engages in the business of debt collection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Theron D. Morrison, Esq. MORRISON + MURFF 290 25th Street, Suite #102 Ogden, UT 84401 Telephone: (801) 392-9324 Facsimile: (801) 337-2087 E-mail: theron@morrisonmurff.com - and - Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com MODANI NY: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Modani New York, LLC. T he case is styled as Lawrence Young, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Modani New York, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07676 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2017). Modani New York, LLC is a Contemporary outlet showcasing sleek home furnishings, from couches to lighting & home accents. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Bronson Lipsky LLP 630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com NABORS DRILLING: Calderon Seeks to Certify Class of Rig Welders --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JOSE CALDERON on behalf of himself individually, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. NABORS DRILLING TECHNOLOGIES USA INC., and EXPRESS PAYROLL INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-00710 (S.D. Tex.), seeks to conditionally certify a class defined as: All current and former Rig Welders classified as independent contractors by Nabors that (1) were paid through Express Payroll in Crosby, Texas, Tyler, Texas, Pennsylvania, and/or Oklahoma, or (2) were paid through A&W in North Dakota and/or Wyoming, at any time during the last three years. Mr. Calderon alleges that he worked for Nabors as a "Rig Welder" but was not paid any overtime wages when he worked over 40 hours in a week due to being misclassified as an independent contractor. He states after filing this lawsuit, more than 80 other Rig Welders joined this case as Opt-In Plaintiffs. Given that conditional certification will result in an efficient resolution of this case, he seeks certification under 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and authorization to mail a Court approved Notice to the Class Members. Mr. Calderon also asks the Court to require Nabors to produce the names and all known addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, dates of employment, and e-mail addresses for all Class Members so that notice may be implemented. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xAfrXILg The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, LLP 711 W. Alabama St. Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com - and - Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Telephone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com NANTKWEST INC: Johnson Fistel Announces Investigations ------------------------------------------------------ Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims against NantKwest, Inc., K12 Inc., and CytRx Corporation as detailed below: NantKwest, Inc. (NK) Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announced that it is investigating whether certain officers or directors of NantKwest, Inc. (NASDAQ: NK) ("NantKwest") violated federal or state laws. On September 20, 2017, a federal court denied a motion to dismiss a securities fraud class action filed against the company and certain executives. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants made misrepresentations and omissions related to a secret warrant modification that elevated Defendant Patrick Soon-Shiong's compensation higher than any other executive in the United States, and a secret related-party lease arrangement NantKwest and Soon- Shiong made prior to NantKwest's initial public offering, causing NantKwest to incur millions of dollars of unreported liability. If you are a long-term shareholder of NantKwest and continuously held shares since July 2015, you may have standing to hold NantKwest harmless from the damage the officers and directors may have caused by making them personally responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing. If you are a long-term NantKwest shareholder continuously holding shares since July 2015, and are interested in learning more about your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim -- jimb@johnsonfistel.com -- at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. K12 Inc. (LRN) Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announced that it is investigating whether certain officers or directors of K12 Inc. (NYSE: LRN) ("K12") violated federal or state laws. On August 30, 2017, a federal court denied in part a motion to dismiss a securities fraud class action filed against the company and certain executives. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants issued false and misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1) K12 was publishing misleading advertisements about students' academic progress, parent satisfaction, their graduates' eligibility for University of California and California State University admission, class sizes, the individualized and flexible nature of K12's instruction, hidden costs, and the quality of the materials provided to students; (2) K12 submitted inflated student attendance numbers to the California Department of Education in order to collect additional funding; (3) K12 was open to potential civil and criminal liability due to these practices; (4) K12 would likely be forced to end these practices, which would have a negative impact on K12's operations and prospects, and/or that K12 was, in fact, ending the practices; and (5) as a result, K12's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the factual details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you are a long-term shareholder of K12 and continuously held shares before October 10, 2013, you may have standing to hold K12 harmless from the damage the officers and directors may have caused by making them personally responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing. If you are a long-term K12 shareholder continuously holding shares before October 10, 2013, and are interested in learning more about your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonfistel.com -- at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. CytRx Corporation (CYTR) Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential violations of the federal securities laws by CytRx Corporation (NASDAQ: CYTR) ("CytRx") and certain of its officers. On August 14, 2017, a federal court denied in part a motion to dismiss a securities fraud class action filed against the company and certain executives. The complaint alleges that defendants made materially misleading statements and omissions to investors regarding CytRx's pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of aldoxorubicin as a second-line treatment for STS. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you are a long-term shareholder of CytRx and continuously held shares before September 12, 2014, you may have standing to hold CytRx harmless from the damage the officers and directors may have caused by making them personally responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing. If you are a long-term CytRx shareholder continuously holding shares before September 12, 2014, and are interested in learning more about your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonfistel.com -- at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. About Johnson Fistel Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. [GN] NEW YORK: Broken Bail System Drives Civil Rights Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News, reports that New York City's failure to adopt bail reforms two years after a report labeled the system "deranged" has sparked a federal class action by three men caught in the crossfire. Vice News used the language in question in August 2015, and the Center for Court Innovation shed light on the delays and improperly extended detentions tied to what it called the city's "confusing and perplexing" bail system four months later. Still waiting for enforcement of the recommendations that report put forward, former detainees James Lynch, Lloyd Jones and Baron Spencer say they want to represent a class of the thousands of presumptively innocent detainees who were jailed for hours or days over the years, "as these well-documented problems went unaddressed . . . in violation of court orders entitling them to release upon posting bail." The men filed their federal class action on October 4 in Manhattan, alleging false imprisonment and violations of civil rights. They note that the concept of bail is simple but its practice in New York is "byzantine and inhumane." "Every day and night, friends, family members, and charitable organizations present themselves at New York City Department of Correction facilities with cash, cashier's checks, and money orders, asking to pay bail for a presumptively innocent person who is in jail -- and they are turned away," the complaint states. "They are told that the computers or the fax machines are not working; that the responsible staff is not available; that the person is not 'eligible' to be released on bail because he or she is in the midst of the day-long ordeal of being processed for admission to a jail facility; or another of an endless supply of excuses. They are told to come back after lunch; to come back after the next shift change; to come back the next day." It should take mere minutes, hours at most, to release a detainee once his bail is paid, according to the complaint. "Instead, detainees often languish for a day or more after their bail has been posted -- even though they are, by judicial order, entitled to release, and there is no lawful basis for continued restraints on their liberty," the complaint states. "Such overdetentions are, as courts across the country have long held, unconstitutional." City officials effectively admitted, in their adoption of a bail- efficiency law this past June, that a bail payment should trigger the release of a detainee within five hours, according to the complaint. "The city nonetheless detained members of the class for many hours or days beyond the three to five hour threshold, without any legitimate governmental necessity," the complaint states. "These overdetentions resulted from the city's unconstitutional policies, practices, usages and/or customs and from its unlawful deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of class members." A spokesman for the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice denied that the city has no interest in adopting reforms, saying its efforts are documented in the lawsuit itself. "This suit quotes extensively from a report commissioned by the city -- precisely so that we can identify fixes -- which should show that we are serious about improving the system," spokesman Patrick Gallahue said in an email. Gallahue noted that the city is also investing $500,000 a year to hire 50 "bail expediters," a move that is expected to keep around 2,000 people from being booked into jail every year. New York City is also developing an online bail-payment system, Gallahue confirmed, saying they plan to have ATMs in every courthouse by late 2017. "New York City has taken a clear-eyed look at the bail system and has launched a number of efforts to ensure that not only are fewer people held on bail, but that for those who receive bail, payment is easier than it has ever been and that defendants can be released as expeditiously as possible," Gallahue said. Against these claims, the class calls New York City's bail system "hopelessly broken." A New York City councilman even likened it to "the DMV on steroids" in a 2015 interview with Vice News, according to the complaint. "The bail process in New York City is like if Kafka wrote a novel on criminal justice," City Councilman Rory Lancman said, according to the complaint. "You don't know where to go, you don't know what to do, and you don't know when your loved one is even getting out." Vice called it "probably easier to buy a gun online than free a loved one from jail." Pointing to the Center for Court Innovation's 2015 expose, the class quotes investigators as recommending "that DOC address its woefully inadequate staffing of the bail process and use the opportunity of reductions in jail population to 'reallocate DOC staff in order to adequately staff the bail payment process.' "On information and belief," the complaint continues, "this recommendation was ignored." The DOC likewise ignored a recommendation that defendants should be afforded the chance to post bail immediately before or during the intake process. Further compounding these failures, as found by the audit, is the DOC's on fax machines and an antiquated paper-records system. "Stakeholders unanimously believed that DOC's paper-based system makes every step of the process longer and more difficult," the report found. Detainees say the DOC has nevertheless ignored advice to go digital. Citing a statistic from 2014, the complaint says nearly half of the 12,880 defendants whose family or friends had the means to post bail early in the life of their criminal case were unable to do so immediately after arraignment, prior to the defendant's removal from court and transport to a detention facility. Once transported a detention facility, processing can last between 12 and 22 hours or longer according to the complaint. "This process consists of invasive and frequently demeaning medical screening, strip searches, and other jail intake procedures" the complaint continues. Each of the three lead plaintiffs says he was detained for many hours or days beyond the three-to-five hour threshold, without any legitimate governmental necessity. The class is represented by Matthew Brinckerhoff, Esq. -- mbrinckerhoff@ecbalaw.com -- of New York City firm Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady. NEW YORK, NY: Josefina S. Files Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The City of New York. The case is styled as Josefina S., Deaja D., Cynthia Q., Shantell S. and Bianca M., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The City of New York, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07661 (S.D. NY, October 6, 2017). The City of New York, often called New York City or simply New York, is the most populous city in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE. NUTRISYSTEM INC: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in Southern District of NY ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nutrisystem Inc. The case is styled as Richard Baldelli and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nutrisystem Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07692 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2017). Nutrisystem, Inc. is a provider of weight management products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks 280 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10010 Tel: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (212) 254-4202 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com OKLAHOMA CTY: Faces "Moreland" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Corey Moreland and all others similarly situated inmates, et al. v. County of Oklahoma, John Whetsel, John Whetsel, PD Taylor, and PD Taylor, Case No. 5:17-cv-01029-R (W.D. Ok., September 26, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for Civil Rights violation. Oklahoma County is a county located in the central part of the U.S. state of Oklahoma. Corey Moreland is a pro se plaintiff. OREGON: Salem Officials Want City to Sue State on Tax ----------------------------------------------------- Kevin Howell, writing for Salem News, reports that the city's treasurer and income tax administrator are asking council to consider joining a class action lawsuit that will prevent the state taxation department from collecting part of the city's income tax. Treasurer John Conrad and Income Tax Administrator Fred Pamer provided council information regarding the lawsuit that seeks an injunction against the Ohio Department of Taxation permitting businesses to file their city income tax through its department instead of directly with the city. The state will then keep .5 percent of the tax collected. Pamer said a house bill regarding income tax collection passed in 2014 and cities must adopt a resolution allowing businesses to file through the state by Jan. 1 or forfeit the ability to collect the tax itself. If all businesses in the city were to file through the state, the city could experience a possible loss of $7,500 annually, Pamer said. And although the initial .5 percent fee does not seem extreme, there is speculation it could increase at a later date, he added, noting that the precedent has been set with other state programs. Law Director Brooke Zellers shared an additional concern -- the erosion of the state constitution. "This is not an issue of being business friendly," he said. "Municipalities have the right to govern themselves (under the state constitution)." Councilwoman Cyndi Dickey, however, disagreed, noting that Pamer had brought the issue before council last year and council declined to join the lawsuit at that time. She said she feels it is an issue of being business friendly since businesses will be able to make one income tax payment to the state taxation department, which then disperses it to the cities in which it pays income taxes. "Hopefully it generates new businesses and encourages them to locate (in Ohio)," she said. Council must decide on participation in the lawsuit by the end of October, Pamer said. There will be a $4,000 fee to join the action. The issue must go before the committee-of-the-whole which would then make a recommendation to council. A committee meeting was not scheduled to discuss the issue and no one asked for one at the council meeting. [GN] ORION HEALTHCORP: Singh-Narayan Seeks Unpaid OT under Labor Law --------------------------------------------------------------- Rookminee Singh-Narayan, and Jairaj Yamraj, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, v. Orion Healthcorp, Inc., and Physicians Practice Plus LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 709520/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 12, 2017), seeks to recover maximum liquidated damages, unpaid overtime Wages, non-overtime wages, costs and attorneys' fees under the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the class of similarly-situated individuals as to the first cause of action under the NYLL is defined as current and former employees who worked for the Defendants as manual workers, in the State of New York and who: 1) were not paid their non-overtime and/or overtime wages weekly as also explained above, within at least the six-year period, preceding the filing of this complaint to the date of disposition of this action. Orion is a healthcare services organization providing outsourced business services to physicians.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740 1000 Facsimile: (718) 740 2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com PASTA GUYS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Leila Gonzalez and other similarly situated individuals v. The Pasta Guys, Inc. d/b/a La Bottega del Maccheron, Massimo Tundo, and Elisabetta Callegaro, Case No. 0:17-cv-61873-WPD (S.D. Fla., September 26, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Pasta Guys, Inc. is a wholesaler of gourmet pasta products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com PATHWAY TO HOPE: "Waymon-Gay" Labor Suit Seek Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Charity Waymon-Gay, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pathway To Hope Counseling Services, Inc. and Celia Mitchell, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv- 00159 (M.D. Ga., September 20, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest and such other legal and equitable relief, and recovery of attorneys' fees and costs to be paid by Defendants, as provided under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff inputs data, answers phones, updates accounts, submits requests for treatment and enters system notes for the Defendants. Pathway terminated Plaintiff for refusing to continue working without pay for hours over forty in a week. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Adian Miller, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 4200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: (404) 496-7332 Fax: (404) 496-7428 Email: ARMiller@forthepeople.com PETLAND: Hit With Class Suit Over Bacterial Disease From Puppies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marwa Eltagouri, writing for Washington Post, reports that a disease linked to puppies sold at Petland, a nationwide chain of about 80 pet stores, has sickened 55 people and hospitalized 13, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Since the outbreak began in mid-September, the disease has spread from seven states to 12 states, with cases reported in Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming. While Campylobacter is a fairly common bacteria among puppies and dogs, it's unusual to see a large, multistate outbreak of human infections, said Mark Laughlin, a CDC veterinarian, in an email. Most cases are associated with eating raw or undercooked poultry or meat, or from cross-contamination of these and other foods. The infection can cause bloody diarrhea, vomiting and fever. Lab results show that puppies sold through Ohio-based Petland are probably the source of the outbreak. About 35 of the people diagnosed recently purchased a puppy from Petland, visited one of the chain's stores or visited a home with a Petland puppy that was sold before the outbreak began. Fourteen of the people diagnosed are Petland employees. But animals can also be infected, and can spread the disease to people even though they might not show any symptoms. People who touch even a small amount of feces on a dog's fur or food bowl, and then inadvertently touch their mouths, can get an infection, Laughlin said. The Campylobacter strain in the recent outbreak appears to be resistant to commonly recommended antibiotics, Laughlin said. But most people who get sick don't need antibiotics and can recover within a week without any specific treatment. Children under 5, adults over 65 and people with weakened immune systems might require additional treatment, Laughlin said. Petland said in a statement on October 3 that "regardless of where they are from, any puppies and dogs may carry Campylobacter germs." Petland said it has been able to provide traceback for any puppy purchased as requested by the CDC. The company is redoubling its efforts on education regarding proper hand sanitation as well. "The CDC has no new recommendations for Petland but continues to advise that Petland reinforces proper hand sanitization before and after playing with any of our puppies with the many sanitation stations in each store," Petland officials said in the statement. The CDC estimates that about 1.3 million cases of Campylobacter occur in people each year, about two-thirds of which are food- borne. The remainder of cases come from animals and other sources. Most of the people infected during the current outbreak are in Florida or Ohio. The CDC has seen 13 human outbreaks of Campylobacter infections linked to contact with dogs since January 2009, Laughlin said. Those outbreaks have caused 47 illnesses and two hospitalizations. Most infections related to this bacteria do not spread from one person to another, but activities such as changing an infected person's diapers or sexual contact with an infected person can lead to an infection. During the current outbreak, one person contracted the disease from sexual contact with a person with a confirmed illness linked to Petland, according to the CDC. The CDC announcement has spurred criticism of pet stores that source puppies from commercial breeding operations, which increasingly have become the targets of animal-protection groups. More than 200 cities and counties have enacted laws that ban pet shops from selling what are known as puppy-mill puppies, and Petland is now the only major national chain selling dogs from commercial breeders. As the CDC continues to investigate the outbreak, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is calling on states to protect their residents and consumers by stopping the importation of puppies for resale until the source of the outbreak is fully determined. Last month, The Washington Post's Karin Brulliard and Lena H. Sun reported that the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a class-action lawsuit in July against Petland, saying it defrauded customers by "guaranteeing" puppies it knew were prone to illnesses and other defects. The company, which says it only sells puppies from breeders licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and with clean federal inspection reports, provides a "Health Warranty" to purchasers of puppies and kittens saying the animal has been examined by two or three veterinarians before being offered for sale. But the animal group's director of litigation, Matthew Liebman, said on October 2 that those inspections are cursory at best and sometimes "rubber-stamped" by veterinarians who are beholden to the company. While Campylobacter is not among the conditions that customers have reported to the group, Liebman said he was not surprised to hear about the outbreak. "It's not hard to see how animals raised in these cramped and unsanitary conditions, trucked hundreds of miles from puppy mills to the pet stores, intermingled with other fragile young animals and handled by numerous employees and customers could become disease vectors," he said. To avoid contracting the illness, the CDC advises owners of puppies and dogs to wash their hands well after handling their pets and to promptly clean up feces, urine or vomit. It's also a bad idea to let a dog lick your mouth or face, CDC officials said. [GN] PLY GEM: Faces "Gazzillo" Class Suit in North. Dist. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Ply Gem Industries, Inc. d/b/a Ply Gem and Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Ply Gem. The case is captioned Clement Gazzillo, Steven Wu, James Rensland, and Barbara Morris, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. d/b/a Ply Gem and Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Ply Gem, Case No. 1:17-cv-01077-MAD-CFH (N.D.N.Y., September 26, 2017). The Defendants manufacture and sell various products for residential and commercial construction. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald W. Boyajian, Esq. James R. Peluso Jr., Esq. DREYER, BOYAJIAN LAW FIRM 75 Columbia Street Albany, NY 12210 Telephone: (518) 463-7784 Facsimile: (518) 463-4039 E-mail: dboyajian@dreyerboyajian.com jpeluso@dreyerboyajian.com PNC BANK: Not Liable in Ohio Ponzi Scheme, Says Appeals Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that PNC Bank does not have to face a proposed class action accusing it aiding the perpetrators of a $70 million Ponzi scheme, a federal appeals court ruled, saying victims suing the bank did show that it violated the Ohio Securities Act. In a decision, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the victims failed to demonstrate how PNC aided in the sale of unregistered securities, the crux of their complaint. [GN] PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Horton" Suit Over FDCA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- William Horton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C., Case No. 5:17- cv-04041 (S.D. W. Va., September 26, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C. operates a debt collection agency in Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher B. Frost, Esq. Ralph C. Young, Esq. Steven R. Broadwater Jr., Esq. HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD P. O. Box 959 Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959 Telephone: (304) 574-2727 Facsimile: (304) 574-3709 E-mail: cfrost@hamiltonburgess.com ryoung@hamiltonburgess.com sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com PRICELINE GROUP: Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward --------------------------------------------------- Janeen Christoff, writing for Travwl Pulse, reports that a class action lawsuit against Priceline will move forward after a judge ruled in the plaintiff's favor in Connecticut. Chapman v. The Priceline Group, Inc. was filed on October 10, 2015, in the District of Connecticut and alleges that Priceline does not honor its "Best Price Guarantee" on flights booked with Spirit Airlines because Priceline charges a markup fee, unbeknownst to customers. Plaintiff Austin Chapman brings the suit on behalf of himself and consumers nationwide and alleges that, because of the added markup, tickets are cheaper on Spirit's website despite a "guarantee" otherwise. Priceline filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in 2016 but the online travel agency was unsuccessful. On September 30, Judge Robert N. Chatigny of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut denied a motion to dismiss filed by Priceline.com. In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Chatigny held that the Plaintiff "had adequately stated a claim for relief" and found that "it is plausible that a reasonable consumer would interpret the contract language to include a promise not to add hidden surcharges." "Priceline's practice of adding surcharges to Spirit Airline tickets is in violation of its best price guarantee. The Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss is the first step toward achieving an important victory for consumers," said the attorney for the plaintiff Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. -- jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- of Tycko & Zavareei LLP. Priceline previously dodged a bullet with a prior lawsuit brought by Adam Singer. The suit, Singer v. The Priceline Group was similar and sought damages from the company for breaching its consumer agreement for best hotel prices. A motion to dismiss that case was granted in July of 2016 by Judge Victor A. Bolden. [GN] PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Faces Tower Health Center Suit in S.D. of Fla ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Select Insurance Company. The case is styled as Tower Health Center, Inc. other Alston Lawrence and Plantation Spinal Care Center, Inc. other Jinnicka Delhomme, Plaintiffs v. Progressive Select Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-61974-DPG (S.D. Fla., October 6, 2017). Progressive Select Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The Company offers auto, trailers, motorcycles, boats, renters, condos, flood, life, and health insurance services. Progressive Select Insurance serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Barbara Perez, Esq. Aronovitz Law 2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3700 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 372-2772 Fax: (305) 397-1886 Email: bp@aronovitzlaw.com - and - Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq. Aronovitz Law One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3700 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 372-2772 Fax: (305) 397-1886 Email: ta@aronovitzlaw.com PROVIDENCE HEALTH: "Caceres" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER CACERES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES SO CA, a business entity form unknown; PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC679408 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 12, 2017), seeks to recover overtime and minimum wages, penalties, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the filing of this action and through to the present Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the State of California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, including but not limited to, unevenly rounding time worked. Providence Health is a not-for-profit Catholic health care ministry committed to providing for the needs of the communities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. Melissa M. Kurata, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone (310) 553 3600 Facsimile (310) 553 3603 PUEBLO COUNTY, CO: Suit Seeks Order to Fix Prison Problems ---------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Mestas, writing for The Pueblo Cheiftain, reports that last month, the Pueblo County jail hit a record number of inmates at the facility -- 162 percent over capacity. Pueblo County Commissioner Garrison Ortiz says that while overcrowding at the jail has been an issue for several years, the most recent surge in inmates over the past two years has put the county's exposure to potential litigation at another kind of all- time high. "At times, I describe the overcrowding issue of our jail in terms of a 'maximum occupancy' sign that you see in restaurants or other businesses. Effectively, the sign above our jail is 509 inmates, and in hitting an all-time high of 808 inmates last month, putting us at 162 percent over capacity, the time to act is now," Ortiz said on October 6." Ortiz, who formed the county's jail task force, said that other counties across the nation have been sued with even less overcrowding than Pueblo has at its jail. The Pueblo County Jail Task Force. in its comprehensive report released in August, determined that a new jail and a detox and substance abuse treatment center is the best option to fix problems at the county's aging jail on the corner of Court and Tenth streets. Ortiz and fellow commissioners have since voted to add a question on the November ballot, asking for a 9/20 percent of one cent per dollar county-wide sales and use tax increase to pay for a new detention center and treatment center. If approved by voters in November, the preferred location for constructing a new county jail would be across the street from the Dennis Maes Judicial building. Ortiz said that courts often have determined that overcrowding is the cause of many constitutional problems, including increased incidents of inmate attacks on other inmates and staff; riots; the spread of communicable diseases; increased incidents of use of force by deputies upon inmates; suicide; exposure to environmental hazards/fire hazards; and increased incidents of sexual violence. Ortiz said that multi-million dollar verdicts are not uncommon in litigation stemming from insufficient jail facilities, and courts often exercise their powers of oversight granted in the constitution, which may include a mandate to remedy any unsafe jail conditions. The first-time commissioner said the jail task force's comprehensive report pointed to multiple lawsuits concerning conditions in state prisons and county jails that have gone to trial. "Some have been adjudicated and many more are currently being litigated, with shattering results to the finances and budgets of states and counties across the country," Ortiz said. One of the example of these cases that Ortiz and the task force cited is a case in which the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska filed a lawsuit over state prisons overcrowding. In Sabata v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, the complaint alleged that the conditions violated inmates' rights. The class-action lawsuit asked for a court order to require state officials to fix prison problems. At the time of the lawsuit, Nebraska prisons overall were operating at 159 percent of capacity. Ortiz noted that the Pueblo County jail is operating at approximately 150 percent over capacity, with a design capacity of 509 beds and an average daily population this year that is approaching 765. Ortiz indicated that both designs for a new jail (adjacent to the judicial center, described above, and another in a more remote area) are 950-bed facilities. He said that according to the National Institute of Corrections, jails operate most safely and efficiently when operating at 80 percent of design capacity. Ortiz also said the jail is in bad shape and has been for quite some time. In an effort to make the public more aware of the jail's problems and to see firsthand its condition, the sheriff's office will hold an open house at the facility on October 7, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Guided tours will be conducted by sheriff's deputies. Sheriff Kirk Taylor said in addition to the jail tours, there will be static displays of equipment, including the Bearcat tactical vehicle, patrol vehicles and fire trucks. Hamburgers, hot dogs and other snacks will be served while supplies last. "The county jail belongs to the citizens of Pueblo County and this is an opportunity for residents to see the facility and observe jail operations," said Taylor. Ortiz said people need to see the conditions of the jail. "Smelling the sewage that permeates the building, seeing the plastic boats piled side-by-side with bodies on them, and witnessing one deputy controlling 90 inmates is the only visual that does justice in communicating the sense of urgency that this situation commands," Ortiz said. [GN] PURDUE PHARMA: Indianapolis Hires Law Firm to Pursue Legal Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- CBS4 reports that the city of Indianapolis has hired a law firm to pursue legal action against opioid distributors and manufacturers as Marion County deals with an ongoing drug crisis. The city hired Cohen and Malad, LLP to handle the case. Mayor Joe Hogsett said the companies must be held accountable for their role in the dramatic rise of opioid addiction. "The companies contributing to this crisis have failed in their duty to be responsible gatekeepers," Hogsett said. He suggested that the companies valued "profits over people" and allowed opioids to proliferate. Hogsett said many of those struggling with addiction sought pain relief and were prescribed addiction instead, with many of them eventually turning to heroin. That has led to increased crime and fatal overdoses -- with 345 deaths in 2016 attributed to drug overdoses in Marion County. "Opioids are killing Hoosiers," Hogsett said. "Opioids are killing our neighbors right here throughout the city of Indianapolis." Hogsett said opioids have been manufactured and prescribed for two decades without sufficient warning about their addictive qualities and long-term risks. "Men and women, young men and young women, mothers, fathers, professionals, community members -- they all sought relief from pain and were instead administered addiction," Hogsett said. Attorney Irwin Levin said the companies have caused irreparable damage to cities and counties. He added that this isn't a class action suit, but rather one filed on behalf of the city -- the firm would only get paid if the city won the lawsuit. Levin said likely defendants would include Purdue Pharma, Endo Health, Teva and distributors such as AmerisourceBergen, McKesson Corporation and Cardinal Health. He said it's time for them to be held accountable. "These potential defendants spread the false message that opioids were safe for chronic pain and not addictive," he said. "They were at the top of the chain of distribution and saw, unquestionably, suspicious orders of opioids but turned a blind eye to their legal duties and obligations to stop and report those orders." Levin said 75 to 100 similar lawsuits have been filed across the country, some of which have been successfully litigated. Hogsett said the lawsuit is another tool in a "holistic approach" that the city is taking toward criminal justice reform. Other tools include the Reuben Engagement center, a mobile crisis team and expanded treatment options. [GN] REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Whitley" Suit in E.D. of New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regional Adjustment Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Tanisha Whitley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Regional Adjustment Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv- 05885 (E.D.N.Y., October 6, 2017). The Regional Adjustment Bureau, Incorporated, engaged in the collection of debt, maintains a principal place of business in Cordova, Tennessee. The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. RESTAURANT BRANDS: Tim Hortons Franchisees Sue for $850MM --------------------------------------------------------- Hollie Shaw, writing for Financial Post, reports that Tim Hortons franchisees who created an association to address their grievances with parent company Restaurant Brands International Inc. have filed an $850 million class action lawsuit against the company, alleging the fast food operator is trying to intimidate its restaurant owners and force the franchisees who formed the group out of their restaurants. Filed on October 6, it marks the second class action lawsuit from unhappy Tim Hortons store owners this year against their corporate parent. The legal action comes after months of escalating animosity between management and franchisees who have taken the veteran brand's Brazilian-based owners to task for allegedly passing added costs on to the store owners. "Since the time of the corporate takeover of Tim Hortons, the relationship between Tim Hortons and its franchisees has become more adversarial than amicable," says the statement of claim filed in Ontario Superior Court on behalf of two store owners, one in Ontario and one in Alberta, who are board members of the Great White North Franchisee Association. The franchisees say that Restaurant Brands (RBI) and its Ontario- based Tim Hortons operator TDL Group Ltd. issued them default notices -- essentially, a legal claim by a master franchisor to take away a franchisee's restaurants -- after management claimed that they and seven other owners who make up the association's board group leaked confidential corporate information to the press. Last month, TDL issued default notices to all nine of GWNFA's board members, eight in Canada and one in the U.S. Restaurant Brands has said the franchisees should enlist the company's elected franchisee board to bring their concerns to management. The association was formed in March after franchisees grew frustrated with the elected franchisee board for failing to address their complaints. The slow-brewing fight formed in the wake of Tim Hortons takeover in late 2014 by Burger King owner 3G Capital, a Brazilian private equity firm that merged the two in late 2014 to form Restaurant Brands International. In February, Restaurant Brands bought the Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen chain for US$1.8 billion, seeking to pursue an aggressive international expansion strategy for the chicken brand as it has done with Hortons and Burger King. The lawsuit also comes amid concerns that Tim Hortons may be weakening due to market saturation on its home turf. In the second quarter ended June 30, Tim Hortons reported the second consecutive quarter of falling same-stores sales in Canada, where it has the bulk of its locations. Beyond questions about the use of the advertising fund, the association has accused management of offloading costs onto franchisees by eliminating regional area managers and increasing the wholesale prices that franchisees are charged. Daniel Schwartz, chief executive officer of Restaurant Brands International. In the suit filed on October 6, the plaintiffs called those allegations false and allege that the company has been interfering with franchisees' legal right to form an association. "Franchisees who have sought to or have joined the association have been subject to intimidation and bullying by the defendants both in private and in public," have been "threatened with adverse dealings by TDL and RBI," and who are fearful of being targeted for joining the group, the suit says. After the association was incorporated, the claim says, the defendants "acted jointly and in concert in engaging in a pattern of conduct which constitutes a breach of its duty of fair dealing and directly or indirectly seeks to interfere with, restrict, penalize, or threaten franchisees from exercising their rights to association." The statement of claim on October 6 also names Daniel Schwartz, chief executive of RBI; Sami Siddiqui, president of RBI; Andrea John, head of finance for RBI and Jon Domanko, head of legal for RBI as defendants, and is seeking $300 million in individual damages for alleged breach of duty. In June, Tim Hortons franchisees in Canada launched a $500-million class action lawsuit alleging mismanagement of an advertising fund and rising costs. In August, Restaurant Brands International's Schwartz called that suit "baseless," and said he did not want to speculate on whether or not the franchisee outcry was hurting the Tim Hortons brand. Both proposed class actions still require certification. On October 6, Tim Hortons said that it will not interfere with its franchisees' rights to associate. "We recently issued default notices to a small group of restaurant owners who we believe are deliberately releasing confidential information to the media, which harms the businesses of the thousands of hardworking restaurant owners who built this great brand," the restaurant chain said in a statement. "This latest tactic of filing another unfounded lawsuit and sharing it with the media is yet another example of their disregard for the brand and our restaurant owners." David Hughes, the Alberta-based president of the Great White North Franchisee Association and one of the two plaintiffs in the case, said he believes head office issued default notices "to stop us and instill fear," he said in an interview. But Hughes said news of the default notices from management has boosted the association's membership, with the franchisee group including more than 50 per cent of the Tim Hortons' franchisees in Ontario and over 50 per cent of those in Alberta. "It's rallied the troops." Tim Hortons has more than 3,500 franchised restaurants across Canada and more than 1,000 franchisees. The mudslinging could tarnish the brand's name on its home turf, experts say, if consumers and investors perceive that management is mistreating its franchisees or that the dispute is affecting restaurant service. "Tim Hortons' whole consumer base is predicated on the connection to communities and they have tried to remain authentic and local, even though they answer to a big corporation," said Carl Boutet, a retail strategist with the Montreal-based advisory firm StudioRX. "The message that 3G is sending here is that they will do what is right for them instead of what is right for their franchisees." Les Stewart, an Ontario-based franchisee consultant, said the issuance of default notices to franchisees is highly unusual. "This shows a predatory franchisor at its worst and it suggests (RBI) is taking a juvenile approach towards Canadian law," he said. "It seems that they don't understand the difference between a franchisee and an employee." It is not an easy legal road for master franchisors to take back healthy franchises, Stewart added. "The Superior Courts understand how franchising works." [GN] RICE ENERGY: Williford Moves to Certify Class of Oilfield Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned BURTON WILLIFORD, each individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. RICE ENERGY, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-00945-AJS (W.D. Pa.), moves for conditional certification of this class: ALL CURRENT AND FORMER OILFIELD WORKERS EMPLOYED BY, OR WORKING ON BEHALF OF RICE ENERGY, INC. WHO WERE CLASSIFIED AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND PAID A DAY-RATE DURING THE LAST THREE (3) YEARS. Burton Williford also asks the Court to (1) order that judicial notice proposed by Plaintiff be sent to all Putative Class Members; (2) order the mailing and e-mailing of the proposed notice, along with a reminder notice after 30 days; (3) order Rice to post the notice documents on Rice's jobsites/offices for the entire opt-in period; (4) authorize follow up calls to ensure returned notices are delivered to the Putative Class Members; (5) order Rice to produce to Plaintiff's Counsel the contact information for each Putative Class Member within 20 days of the Courts order; and (6) authorize a 60-day notice period for Putative Class Members to join the case. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ysC2trnv The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com RISE MEDICAL: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, "Horn" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANNETTE HORN, an individual on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. RISE MEDICAL STAFFING, LLC; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-01967-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal., September 21, 2017), is a California-wide class action against Rise for failing to (1) include all remuneration in the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime wages, and (2) timely pay all wages owing at termination of employment. Rise Medical Staffing, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company that maintains its principal place of business in Sacramento, California. The Plaintiff is currently unaware of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. Rise is a healthcare staffing company that employs hourly health care professionals for short-term travel assignments at health care providers throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew B. Hayes, Esq. Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq. HAYES PAWLENKO LLP 595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 303 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 808-4357 Facsimile: (626) 921-4932 E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com ROYAL OAK: Class of Terminated Workers Certified in "Bystry" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Janet T. Neff granted the Plaintiff's class certification motion in the lawsuit styled DUSTY A. BYSTRY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ROYAL OAK INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a ROYAL OAK BORING, INC. and BRONSON PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-00210-JTN-ESC (W.D. Mich.). The Class certified is comprised of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of Royal Oak: (i) who worked at or reported to one of Defendant's facilities, (ii) who were terminated from employment on or about February 15, 2016, within 30 days of that date, or in reasonable anticipation of or as the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by Defendant on or about February 15, 2016, (iii) who are "affected employees" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 2101(a)(5), and (iv) who have not filed a timely request to opt-out of the class. Outten & Golden LLP is appointed as Class Counsel and Dusty A. Bystry is appointed Class Representative. Judge Neff approves the proposed form of Notice to the Class submitted to the Court. Judge Neff orders that within 10 days after the entry of this Order, the Defendant shall provide Class Counsel with the names and addresses of the class members as noted in the Defendant's records. On or before 10 days after receipt from the Defendant of the names and addresses of the Class members, Class Counsel shall provide notice of the pendency of the class action lawsuit by mailing the Notice, First Class postage prepaid, to all class members to their last known address as noted in the records of the Defendant. After such mailing, Class Counsel shall serve and file a sworn statement affirming compliance with this Order concerning the mailing of the Notice. The deadline for any Class Member to opt-out of the Class shall be 30 days from the date of mailing of the Notice. After the opt-out deadline has expired, Class Counsel shall serve and file a sworn statement listing the names of any persons, who have opted out of the Class. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YoPusZp0 SAN DIEGO, CA: Trash Truck Drivers Get $500K to Settle Wage Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- David GarrickContact, writing for San Diego Union Tribune, reports that San Diego has agreed to pay $500,000 to drivers of city trash trucks to settle a dispute over wages deducted from their paychecks for taking lunch breaks. A class action lawsuit filed in 2014 claims the city failed to properly pay hundreds of drivers by deducting half an hour for a lunch break each shift, even though drivers are required to stay on their collection routes while eating lunch. The city, which declined to admit any wrongdoing despite agreeing to a settlement, contends it doesn't owe the wages because its status as a "charter city" exempts it from applicable state laws. "Charter cities are supreme and beyond the reach of legislative enactments," lawyers for the city said in court documents. Those lawyers also argued that a labor contract with the drivers covers rest periods, overtime and other issues related to the allegedly unpaid wages. And they said drivers have opportunities to address such concerns by filing grievances. The City Council approved the settlement on October 3, but it must get a final OK from the judge in the case because it is a class action suit affecting potentially hundreds of drivers. San Diego typically has just over 100 drivers on staff to pick up trash from residential properties across the city, which it does without charging fees because of a controversial law known as the People's Ordinance. The number of drivers affected by the settlement has been estimated at 220, because the alleged unpaid wages go back to May 2011 and the city has a relatively high turnover of trash truck drivers. The suit was filed on behalf of Thomas Perez, a former city trash truck driver. The $500,000 settlement covers payments to driver and attorney's fees. If the city had lost the case in a civil trial, the payout would have covered more than six years of back wages, plus interest, for many of the drivers. A spokesman for City Attorney Mara Elliott said the motive for agreeing to a settlement was avoiding any further risk for San Diego and its taxpayers. The spokesman, Gerry Braun, the city disputes liability and admits no wrongdoing in the case. Drivers of city trash trucks typically receive annual salaries of about $50,000, but many make more than $80,000 when overtime, benefits and other compensation is included. The city began requiring drivers to document their lunch breaks in June 2016. [GN] SCANA CORPORATION: "Brown" Suit Moved to South Carolina Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Hope Brown and Thomas Lott, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. South Carolina Public Service Authority also known as: Santee Cooper and SCANA Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2017-CP-40-05409, was removed on Oct. 12, 2017 from the Court of Common Pleas Richland County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Columbia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-02764-TLW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Terry L Wooten. South Carolina State Public Service Authority operates as a government owned utility company. The Company serves individuals, small businesses, and corporations. South Carolina State Public Service Authority treats, transmits, distributes and sells water. South Carolina State Public Service Authority is located in Moncks Corner South Carolinian.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arthur Camden Lewis, Esq. LEWIS BABCOCK LLP PO Box 11208 Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: (803) 771 8000 Facsimile: (803) 733 3534 E-mail: acl@lewisbabcock.com The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin Rush Smith, III, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH PO Box 11070 Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: (803) 799 2000 Facsimile: (803) 256 7500 E-mail: rush.smith@nelsonmullins.com - and - James Y. Becker, Esq. Manton McCutchen Grier, Esq. Mary Cothonneau Eldridge, Esq. Robert Yates Knowlton, Esq. HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD PO Box 11889 Columbia, SC 29211-1889 Telephone: (803) 779 3080 Facsimile: (803) 765 1243 E-mail: jbecker@hsblawfirm.com mgrier@hsblawfirm.com meldridge@hsblawfirm.com bknowlton@hsblawfirm.com SCRANTON, PA: Resident Sues Over Sewer Sale Proceeds ---------------------------------------------------- Jim Lockwood, writing for The Times-Tribute, reports that a Scranton resident suing the city, Dunmore and two law firms involved in the $195 million sale of the municipalities' sewer system claims the sale's proceeds were improperly disbursed and should be returned to the Scranton Sewer Authority. The plaintiff, Anthony Moses of Fisk Street, names as defendants Scranton and its special counsel for the sewer sale, the Abrahamsen, Conaboy & Abrahamsen law firm of Scranton; and Dunmore and its borough solicitor, Cummings Law of Dunmore. Moses is represented by Philadelphia attorneys Simon Paris, Esq. - - sparis@smbb.com -- Patrick Howard, Esq. -- phoward@smbb.com -- and Charles Kocher, Esq. -- ckocher@smbb.com -- of the Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky law firm. The lawsuit filed on October 5 in Lackawanna County Court claims that under the state Municipal Authorities Act, the sewer authority was allowed to expend money only for purposes directly related to its mission. State law prohibited the authority from transferring sewer sale proceeds to Scranton and Dunmore "for their general welfare," and for paying their sewer-sale legal bills out of net proceeds, the lawsuit says. The lawsuit seeks the return of all net proceeds to the sewer authority, which includes about $70 million transferred to Scranton, $17 million to Dunmore, $200,000 paid to the Abrahamsen firm and $256,000 paid to the Cummings firm. The authority also should be ordered to place the returned money in escrow, "until the SSA properly settles all outstanding claims against it as required" by law, the lawsuit says. One such claim is a separate, class-action lawsuit filed by the Saltz law firm last October, against the sewer authority over an issue involving missing sewer-line easements. Moses also is one of the class-action plaintiffs in that earlier lawsuit, which remains pending in Lackawanna County Court. Scranton special counsel Edwin "Ned" Abrahamsen said Moses' lawsuit has no merit and is being used as leverage in the class- action lawsuit. "Although we have not had a full opportunity to review the complaint, note that plaintiff's law firm is the same law firm which brought the class-action suit regarding sewer easements," Abrahamsen said in an emailed response to a Times-Tribune reporter's request for comment. "This appears to be an attempt to force an unreasonable settlement of the class action upon the citizens of our city. We intend to vigorously defend this baseless claim." Attempts to reach Dunmore solicitor Thomas Cummings and Scranton solicitor Jessica Boyles were unsuccessful. The authority's sale of the sewer system to Pennsylvania American Water closed Dec. 29. Moses' lawsuit does not name the Scranton Sewer Authority as a defendant. The lawsuit notes that despite a city ordinance in late December authorizing termination of the sewer authority, it remains in existence. Since the agency has not been terminated and its outstanding claims remain pending, the transfers of sale proceeds to the city and borough should not have occurred, the lawsuit says. It also notes that state law allows a ratepayer to an authority to seek the return of money expended by that authority in violation of that law. The authority also placed $17 million of sale proceeds in an escrow account, of which $12 million was set aside for resolving the class-action lawsuit over easements. Moses' lawsuit says it's unclear how that $12 million escrow was determined and "whether it will be enough to compensate all the property owners who have undisclosed sewer lines on their properties and, in some cases, directly underneath their homes," such as Moses. [GN] SECURA INSURANCE: Face "Kresal" Suit in Western District of Wis --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SECURA Insurance Holdings, Inc. a/k/a SECURA Insurance, Inc. The case is styled as Tanner Kresal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SECURA Insurance Holdings, Inc. a/k/a SECURA Insurance, Inc., a/k/a SECURA Insurance, a Mutual Company a/k/a SECURA Insurance Companies and Kohn Law Firm S.C., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00766 (W.D. Wis., October 6, 2017). SECURA Insurance is a mutual insurance company in the United States that offers property and casualty insurance through independent insurance agents in 12 states. The company focuses on insurance for businesses, homes and autos, farms, non-profit organizations, and special events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Leighton Crandall, Esq. Crandall Law Offices, SC PO Box 27 New Richmond, WI 54017 Tel: (715) 246-1012 Fax: (715) 246-1018 Email: consumerlaw@frontiernet.net - and - Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq. Consumer Justice Center, P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Tel: (651) 770-9707 Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com - and - Thomas John Lyons, Sr. Lyons Law Firm PA 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Tel: (651) 770-9707 x122 Fax: (651) 770-5830 Email: tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com SERAFINA MANAGEMENT: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. of New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Serafina Management Group, Ltd. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Serafina Management Group, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 07695 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2017). Serafina Management Group, Ltd. is a New York City-based restaurant chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Bronson Lipsky LLP 630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com SNAPPER INN: Judicial Intervention Sought in "Orgera" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Request for Judicial Intervention was filed on September 20, 2017 in the case captioned William Orgera, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Snapper Inn, Inc., Richard H. Remmer, George H. Remmer, Jr., Karen Remmer Mark, and any other related corporate entities, Defendants, Case No. 606066/2017, (N.Y. Sup., June 23, 2017). Defendants are in the restaurant and catering business where Plaintiffs worked as waiters, bussers and bartenders. Suit seeks to recover unlawfully retained gratuities pursuant to New York Labor laws. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Markowitz, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Tel: (516) 873-9550 Snapper Inn, Inc., Richard H. Remmer, George H. Remmer, Jr. and Karen Remmer Mark are represented by: KAUFMAN DOLOWICH SCHNEIDER 135 Crossways Park Drive, Ste. 201 Woodbury, NY 11797 Tel: (516) 681-1100 SNG LAUNDROMAT: Seeks to Dismiss "Baca" Suit -------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Suyapa Baca and Arlex Escobar, Plaintiffs, v. SNG Laundromat Corp. (d/b/a 24 HR Laundromat) and Stephen Gregoretti, Defendants, Case No. 606710/2017, (N.Y. Sup., July 13, 2017), a motion was filed on September 20, 2017, by SNG Laundromat to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff seeks actual and compensatory damages for failure to make proper contributions to Social Security; Workers' Compensation; Unemployment Insurance; New York Disability Insurance; and Medicare; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; attorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting these claims; and such other relief resulting from fraud and breach of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants from September 2013 to April 2015, as a laundromat attendant. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Neil M. Frank, Esq. FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 500 Bi-County Boulevard, Suite 465 Farmingdale, NY 11735 Tel: (631) 756-0400 Fax: (631) 756-0547 Email: Nfrank@laborlaws.com SNG Laundromat Corp. and Stephen Gregoretti are represented by: WEINSTEIN, KAPLAN & COHEN 1325 Franklin Ave., Suite 210 Garden City, NY 11530 (516) 877-2525 SOCAL PERMANENTE: "Roy" Suit Moved to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Danny Roy, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Inc., a California Corporation and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC671424, was removed on Oct. 12, 2017 from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-07457 to the proceeding. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Inc. provides medical care services to Kaiser Permanente members in Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Christian J Rowley, Esq. Seyfarth Shaw, Esq. 560 Mission Street 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397 2823 Facsimile: (415) 397 8549 E-mail: crowley@seyfarth.com STARBUCKS CORP: "Wills" Suit Seeks Damages Under FCRA ----------------------------------------------------- Kevin Wills, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Starbucks Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 03654 (N.D. Ga., September 20, 2017), seeks statutory and punitive damages, attorney fees and costs and such other relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Starbucks owns and operates approximately 12,000 coffee shops globally. Starbucks obtained and used a background report prepared by Accurate Background, Inc. to make an employment decision regarding Plaintiff. The consumer report provided to Starbucks included a statement that "Kevin W. Willis" of Minnesota had been convicted twice of domestic violence. Upon receipt of the consumer report, Starbucks informed Wills that he could not work for Starbucks. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Feagle, Esq. Cliff R. Dorsen, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP 2374 Main Street, Suite B Tucker, GA 30084 Telephone: (404) 373-1970 Facsimile: (404) 601-1855 - and - Kris Skaar, Esq. Justin T. Holcombe, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP 133 Mirramont Lake Drive Woodstock, GA 30189 Telephone: (770) 427-5600 Facsimile: (404) 601-1855 - and - Matthew A. Dooley, Esq. Anthony R. Pecora, Esq. O'TOOLE, McLAUGHLIN, DOOLEY & PECORA, CO., LPA 5455 Detroit Road Sheffield Village, OH 44054 Telephone: (440) 930-4001 Facsimile: (440) 934-7208 Email: apecora@omdplaw.com mdooley@omdplaw.com STATE COLLECTION: Studebaker's Motion to Certify Class Stricken --------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on September 22, 2017, in the case entitled Angel Studebaker v. State Collection Service, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00841 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr. The minute entry states that: -- by agreement of the Plaintiff, the motion to certify class is stricken without prejudice; and -- Plaintiff anticipates filing a stipulation of dismissal. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FUVUvD67 SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Unlikely Alliance Formed in Sewer Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Brand, writing for News Day, reports Paul Sabatino, former chief deputy Suffolk County executive and once the county legislature's longtime counsel, has gained a major and unlikely ally in his $259.6 million lawsuit that claims Suffolk has overcharged the average Southwest Sewer district taxpayer $3,419 each. The law firm of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, which has 1,000 attorneys worldwide, has joined Sabatino and veteran anti-Shoreham attorney Irving Like, 93, in their two-year battle in state Supreme Court. The firm will only be paid if they win. And the most improbable part is that Arnold & Porter's top attorney will be Sabatino's one-time arch-foe, James M. Catterson, a former deputy county attorney. "It's pure Suffolk County, where the enemy of my enemy is my friend," said Patrick Halpin, former county executive. "But the backing of a prestigious law firm should be a concern." Sabatino and Catterson clashed in the early 1990s over an $18 million plan to lease 1,800 county cars, which was engineered by Catterson and opposed by Sabatino as wasteful. At the time, Sabatino was dubbed "the 19th legislator" by supporters and "Darth Vader" by foes. Catterson is the son of often combative former District Attorney James M. Catterson Jr. The deal was dumped in midstream amid county and state investigations. Catterson was later elected a state Supreme Court justice in 1998 and rose to become an appellate judge. He was not renominated in 2012, despite the lobbying of former GOP Gov. George Pataki and former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato. While Catterson's firm brings huge resources to the case, Jason Elan, a spokesman for Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone, downplayed the impact, calling Sabatino a "political hack" and his suit frivolous. "James Catterson and his white-shoe law firm isn't going to put lipstick on this pig," he said. Catterson did not return calls for comment. First filed in 2015, the suit claims that the 75,000 district taxpayers have been repeatedly overcharged because the size of the sewer fund surplus has ballooned as the bonds on the $1.2 billion project were paid off. Initially, the suit claimed property owners were overtaxed $116.9 million, but that has risen to $259.6 million as surpluses grew in the 2016 and 2017 budgets. The suit also alleges the county used $62.2 million to plug holes in the county budget. They are awaiting a ruling from state Supreme Court Justice Peter Meyer for class action status and summary judgment. "We've already short-circuited a Ponzi scheme that was going to balance the countywide budget on the back of Southwest Sewer District taxpayers," said Sabatino, but added the suit is also crucial to block county officials from "getting free rein to raid all county funds and move the money around." Since the suit was filed two years ago, Bellone has lowered district taxes by $19.2 million and proposed a further $5.6 million cut for next year. Bellone aides have maintained the surpluses are necessary because there are $423 million in needed district capital projects, including the $207 million new bay outfall pipe on which construction will start next year. They also note $29 million will be repaid to the district by 2029, starting with first five percent next year. Bellone's 2018 budget proposed using $80.2 million of the sewer fund next year to pay cash for sewer projects, including $57.6 million for the outfall pipe, claiming it would save $44 million in interest and lower the sewer fund surplus to $79 million. Sabatino said using cash to pay for capital projects that last 40 years penalizes current property owners to foot the bill and gives a free ride to those who come later. "It's not exactly a match made in heaven," said Gregory Blass, former presiding officer during the car lease controversy, of the Sabatino-Catterson alliance. "But it's a job that needs to be done, given the wasteful finances of the last few years where corners were cut and short cuts taken and hands have gotten caught in the cookie jar." [GN] SUGAR LAND, TX: Resident Sues Over Red Light Cameras ---------------------------------------------------- Dina Kesbeh, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports a Sugar Land resident who has spent more than a decade fighting red light cameras filed a class action appeal against the City of Sugar Land in the Texas First Court of Appeals District. Helwig F. Van Der Grinten, founder of Houston Coalition Against Red Light Cameras, recently received his first red-light camera ticket, prompting him to seek out attorneys Russell Bowman and Scott A. Stewart to help overturn the previous dismissal of the class action against the City of Sugar Land. In addition to the city, the lawsuit also names Mayor Joe Zimmerman, Police Chief Doug Brinkley and City Manager Allen Bogard as defendants. Three plaintiffs are named in the class action, Grinten, James Dalton and Anis Hussain. The class action filed would require the return of fines and late fees paid by those issued red light tickets over the past two years. The 275-page brief highlights numerous red light camera lawsuits across Texas, states that Sugar Land failed to conduct the required engineering study and alleges that both the hearing officer and municipal court judge lack jurisdiction. Grinten said that while the City of Sugar Land continues to maintain its statistical findings that red light cameras reduce accidents, he said research is not accurate and that red-light cameras are unconstitutional. "It's a gamble, it's a game," Grinten said. "The city is punishing people basically with taxation by random selection. Even a careful driver like myself will get a red light camera ticket." He added that cameras aren't effective because tickets are issued to the vehicle owner and not the person behind the wheel. Before the lawsuit, Grinten said he used to stand outside the courthouse on Mondays, speaking to people protesting red light tickets and advising them not to pay the fine. "I am certain we are going to win this lawsuit if the city wants to continue running this system they are going to have to refund a large amount of money," Grinten said. Grinten also seeks injunctive relief, which does not mean monetary reward but stopping a specific action or pattern of behavior, in this case barring the city from operating the camera systems. The suit states "the red light camera laws attempt to deprive a vehicle owner of a property right, namely his cash by imposing a civil penalty of $75," which is filed as a violation of due process in the suit. The City of Sugar Land website touts a number of statistics regarding the effectiveness of red light cameras, which include that red-light cameras in Sugar Land resulted in a 58 percent decrease in accidents from 2009-2012. [GN] SUN BANCORP: "Chetcuti" Suit Seeks to Block Sale to OceanFirst -------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL CHETCUTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUN BANCORP, INC., JEFFREY S. BROWN, SIDNEY R. BROWN, ANTHONY R. COSCIA, F. CLAY CREASEY, PETER GALETTO, JR., ELI KRAMER, JAMES B. LOCKHART III, WILLIAM J. MARINO, THOMAS M. O'BRIEN, KEITH STOCK, and GRACE C. TORRES, Case No. 1:17-cv-07329 (D.N.J., September 21, 2017), alleges that the Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties and violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the alleged materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. On June 30, 2017, OceanFirst Financial Corp. and the Company announced that they had entered into a definitive agreement that day under which OceanFirst will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Sun in a cash and stock transaction. The Proposed Transaction was valued at approximately $487 million at the time of the announcement. In connection with the Proposed Transaction, the Defendants filed the Registration Statement on August 29, 2017. Sun is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey and maintains its principal executive offices in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Founded in 1985, Sun is a $2.3 billion asset bank holding company. Sun's primary subsidiary is Sun National Bank, a community bank serving customers throughout New Jersey, and the metro New York region. Non-party OceanFirst is a company incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware and is headquartered in Toms River, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4292 Facsimile: (202) 333-2121 E-mail: denright@zlk.com TACOS EL BRONCO: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Javier Nexticapan Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Tacos el Bronco Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Tacos el Bronco, Mariano Tapia, and Artemio Tapia, Case No. 1:17-cv- 05656 (E.D.N.Y., September 27, 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 located at 4324 4th Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11232. [BN] Javier Nexticapan Lopez is a pro se plaintiff. TINTRI INC: Faces "Clayton" Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Laurence Clayton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tintri, Inc., Ken Klein, Ian Halifax, John Bolger, Charles Giancarlo, Adam Grosser, Kieran Harty, Harvey Jones, Christopher Schaepe, Peter Sonsini, New Enterprise Associates 12, Limited Partnership, Nea Partners 12, Limited Partnership, NEA 12 GP, LLC, Silver Lake Kraftwerk Fund, L.P., Silver Lake Group, L.L.C., Silver Lake Technology Associates Kraftwerk, L.P., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Keybanc Capital Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Needham & Company, LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., Defendant, Case No. 17GIV94312, (Cal. Super., September 20, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and such equitable/injunctive or other relief for violation of federal securities laws. Tintri is an information technology company in the United States and distributes products designed for Enterprise Cloud, virtual machines and containers. The price of Tintri common stock plummeted as the market learned, following the IPO, that the Company's business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as represented in the IPO Registration Statement. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James I. Jaconette, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Fax: (770) 392-0029 TOOTSIE ROLL: Hit With Class Action Over Junior Mints Packaging --------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Fitz-Gibbon, writing for Lohud, reports that when is too much candy not enough? For a Manhattan woman, it's when nearly half of a box of candy is filled with air. In a federal class-action lawsuit against Tootsie Roll Industries, Biola Daniel claims the manufacturer of Junior Mints intentionally deceived sweet-toothed consumers by packaging them in unnecessarily large boxes topped off with too much air, referred to as "slack-fill." "The size of the product's boxes in comparison to the volume of the candy contained therein makes it appear to plaintiff and class members that they are buying more than what is actually being sold," Daniel said in the 36-page suit filed in U.S. District Court in New York City. "Plaintiff and class members are denied the benefit of their bargain because they pay for full boxes of the product but actually receive far less." According to the 36-page suit, Daniel purchased a 3.5 ounce package of the chocolate-covered mint candy at a Duane Reade pharmacy on 125th Street on Sept. 23 for $1.49. Daniel said the box "contained approximately 40 percent non- functional slack-fill." The lawsuit says that's significantly more packaged air than other comparable candies like Milk Duds and Good & Plenty. Daniel said a Milk Duds package contains only 23 percent slack-fill, and Good & Plenty just 12 percent. "By comparing the box of defendant's product to the boxes of comparable candies, it is easy to see that the product contains non-functional slack-fill," the suit says. "Competitors' product boxes are similar in size to defendant's product boxes -- yet contain far more candy. This demonstrates that it is possible to fit a greater quantity of candy into defendant's product's boxes." Attorneys representing Daniel did not return calls for comment. The lawsuit is a class-action complaint, which seeks other plaintiffs to join in the claim. Daniel is the initial lead plaintiff. Officials at Chicago-based Tootsie Roll Industries did not return a call seeking comment. But in a similar lawsuit pending in Los Angeles, lawyers for the company said those claims were similar to others that have fallen short in court. A motion to dismiss the California claim said "plaintiff's arguments rest almost entirely on the exact same allegations this court has already found insufficient to confer standing to challenge the Sugar Babies snack box." [GN] TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Settlement Targets Student Loan Trusts ---------------------------------------------------------- Jim Flynn, writing for Gazette, reports that after the meltdown of the subprime mortgage market and resulting Great Recession came an epidemic of foreclosures. Creditors initiating these foreclosures -- mostly investment trusts owning pools of mortgages -- often couldn't prove ownership of the loans in question, the amounts owed or both. Yet these creditors would present affidavits, signed under oath, to courts and other government officials conducting the foreclosures, saying all was well and they were entitled to foreclose -- a practice that became known as robo-signing. This led to regulatory sanctions and class-action lawsuits, and foreclosures lacking proper documentation quickly came to a halt. Now the same thing seems to have happened with private student loans. As with subprime mortgages, many of these loans were securitized -- placed into pools held by trusts and with investors holding interests in the trusts. When loans went into default, they were sent to collection agencies for aggressive action. Little attention was paid to proof of ownership, balances owed and expiration of statutes of limitations, however. Student loan borrowers found themselves being chased by debt collectors and named as defendants in lawsuits for unenforceable obligations. This got the attention of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which on Sept. 18 announced the settlement of an administrative action it had brought against 15 Delaware-chartered student loan trusts, collectively known as the National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts, and Transworld Systems Inc., the collection agency used by the trusts. CFPB Director Richard Cordray (still in the saddle despite efforts by Republicans in Congress to oust him), said in a release that "The National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts and their debt collector sued consumers for student loans they couldn't prove were owed and filed false and misleading affidavits in courts across the country." Under the settlement terms, the trusts will pay "at least" $21.6 million in damages, fines and penalties, and Transworld Systems will pay another $2.5 million as a civil penalty. The bad conduct resulting in the CFPB action must cease under an injunction from the court handling the matter. Furthermore, and perhaps of greatest interest to student loan borrowers who haven't yet paid back their loans, the settlement requires an audit of the 800,000 student loans in the portfolio of the trusts. This audit will be conducted by an independent auditor acceptable to the CFPB but will be paid for by the trusts. "If the audit identifies any additional student loans for which the trusts lack the documentation needed to prove the consumers owed the debt, the National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts will cease all collections on these loans," according to the CFPB release. That includes reporting negative credit information to credit reporting agencies. Notwithstanding continuing efforts on the part of the Republican- controlled Congress to put the CFPB out of business, or at least tie its hands, the agency is continuing with other enforcement actions and a long list of regulation-drafting assignments given it by a friendlier Congress in 2010, when the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act became law. [GN] TREASURY WINE: Decision Confirms Shift in CA Closure Process ------------------------------------------------------------ John F. Nucci, Esq., Joel D. Rothman, Esq., Peter M. Saparoff, Esq., of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that recently, in Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v. Treasury Wine Estates Limited ("Treasury Wine"), the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia considered a primary judge's class closure order which broke new ground in group action practice in Australia. The Treasury Wine case is part of a growing trend in Australian securities litigation toward class proceedings similar to the U.S. model, where investors do not have to be a named plaintiff to participate in a recovery. Rather, in this case, prior to the issuer and the representative plaintiff mediating the case, investors needed to "register" by submitting their transaction data. When the case settled after mediation, those who registered could recover from the settlement fund, but those who did not register were shut out of the settlement. Registering was not without risks, however, as the mediation could have failed. Some investors may have feared that by submitting their transaction data they were exposing themselves to the defendants and potential discovery in the event the case did not settle. However, the case did settle after mediation, and those who registered were rewarded. In an effort to foster settlement, Australian courts often order class closures before settlement discussions. Typically, group members were required to register their interest before any mediation took place, with any members who did not register being barred from sharing in any settlement or bringing their claims after settlement was finalized. Before Treasury Wine, however, unregistered group members were also barred from sharing in any judgment if settlement was not finalized. Thus, failing to register as a class member before a closure order issued had the effect of barring a group member's claims, whether or not settlement was achieved. In Treasury Wine, the primary judge issued a class closure order that broke with this practice. There, the judge ordered that any unregistered class members would lose their right to share in a settlement or bring their claims after settlement was finalized. However, the judge ordered that if a settlement was not reached, unregistered group members could still participate in any subsequent judgment. The judgment was appealed to the Full Court, which first considered whether the primary judge was correct in doubting whether the court could make this type of class closure order. First, the Court noted that when Australia's Parliament enacted its representative proceeding statutory scheme (known as the "Part IVA regime" after Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act), it "expressed a legislative intent to adopt an opt out rather than an opt in procedure." The Court further noted that "[c]lass proceedings are intended to require little or no active involvement by class members and class members participate principally for the limited purpose of taking the benefit or suffering the burden of the findings made on common questions." The Court noted that requiring a group member to proactively register in order to share in a settlement arguably clashed with the "opt out" nature of Australian class action claims, stating that "[i]t must be accepted that the requirement for class members to take active steps to 'register' in order to share in a settlement of a class action undercuts to some extent the opt out rationale underpiunning the Part IVA regime." However, it found that the court's power to make a class closure derived from section 33ZF of the Federal Court of Australia Act, which states that "the Court may, of its own motion or on application by a party or a group member, make any order the Court thinks appropriate or necessary to ensure that justice is done in the proceeding." The broad language of section 33ZF essentially allows the court to make any order that is necessary to facilitate justice. The Full Court held that a class closure order falls under this provision, but "[t]here must be good reason to exercise the discretion to make a class closure order which may operate to deny the benefits of a settlement to class members who do not opt out and who do not take the active steps of registering." The Court further held that"if a class closure order operated to facilitate the desirable end of settlement, it may be reasonably adapted to the purpose of seeking or obtaining justice in the proceeding." The Court recognized that the idea behind a class closure order is to allow the parties to know how many group members will share in a settlement, enabling the parties to base their negotiations on a known number of beneficiaries. A class closure order also provides for finality, in that it assures the parties that if settlement is reached, they will not be subject to additional claims on the subject. The Full Court held that these interests were sufficient to satisfy section 33ZF. While the Full Court allowed that a class closure order can be proper in order to aid in the settlement process, it took care to note that not all class closure orders are appropriate. Most importantly, it cautioned against issuing class closure orders that would bar group members from sharing in a judgment if settlement fell through. It stated that "the facilitation of settlement is a good reason for a class closure order but, if settlement is not achieved, an order to shut out class members who do not respond to an arbitrary deadline is not." The Court noted various factors that judge's should weigh in determining the appropriateness of class closure: Whether it is appropriate to order class closure is a question of balance and judicial intuition. The Court must take into account the interests of the class as a whole in requiring class members to take steps to facilitate settlement, and consider the surrounding circumstances including the point the case has reached, the attitude of the parties, and the complexity and likely duration of the case. The Court found the closure order in this case appropriate because, among other things: the order was made in circumstances where the trial of the case was imminent and the parties had agreed to mediate within three months, the proceeding was at a stage where the parties were in a position to realistically assess the prospects of victory or defeat, the lawyers for the applicant were experienced in class action litigation and able to assess whether class closure was in the interests of class members, and both parties considered that a class closure order should be made in order to facilitate settlement. Hindsight has proven the Court's prediction that class closure orders of this type will facilitate settlement. Once the class was closed in this case, TWE settled the matter, and those who registered have started to receive distributions. The development of the framework articulated by the Court bears watching, particularly for institutional investors with large holdings in Australian issuers. As previously mentioned, the Australian "continuous disclosure" regime may be beneficial to protect investors from fraud. However, it appears that Australia's representative proceeding practice is evolving toward requiring institutions to carefully monitor "open class action" in Australia and register their claims in order to take part in any settlement. Additionally, as in this case, investors may only have a few weeks to register their claims after the Court approves the class closure procedure. [GN] UNITED STATES: Accused of Targeting "Dreamers" for Deportation -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News, reports that the American Civil Liberties Union marked the Trump administration's on October 5 deadline for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program participants to renew by filing a class action on behalf of young undocumented "Dreamers" who say federal officials have unlawfully revoked protections under the program. In April, President Donald Trump said the "dreamers should rest easy." But the president threw the fate of 800,000 young immigrants into serious doubt just a few months later when he rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA, which protected them from deportation and allowed them to work and go to school in the United States. Trump has urged Congress to come up with a replacement. A federal complaint filed Thursday, however, says Trump has further stripped immigrants of protections under DACA "even while the program winds down." The class action comes as immigration rights activists took to the streets of Los Angeles to protest the end of the DACA program -- the last day for recipients, known as "Dreamers," to reapply to the program. Recipients could face deportation as early as March 2018 as the protections are phased out. But according to the class action, immigration officials aren't waiting until then. "On his watch, federal immigration authorities have targeted numerous DACA recipients and unlawfully revoked the grants of deferred action and work permits they have received, without any notice or opportunity to be heard, even though these individuals have abided by all the program rules and have not engaged in any conduct that would disqualify them from the program," the 34-page complaint states. Naming Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection officials, the lawsuit says the government's policies and procedures violate the federal Administrative Procedures Act and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. "President Trump has said that 'Dreamers should rest easy,' yet his administration has placed these young immigrants directly at risk," ACLU attorney Michael Tan said in a statement. "Not only is he ending the protections the government pledged to these young immigrants who know no other home, but his administration is targeting them now while the DACA program is still in place." The "Dreamers" are represented by ACLU attorney Jennifer Chang Newell. In a news release, the ACLU said that the policies and procedures strike at the heart of the Dreamers' immigration status by targeting them for removal for low-level offenses, including traffic infractions. Other young immigrants have lost their DACA status based on unproven allegations, the lawsuit says. Plaintiff Jes£s Alonso Arreola Robles, 23, says he was a cook at the famous Chateau Marmont in West Hollywood and working as a driver for Uber and Lyft when federal immigration agents arrested him this past February while he was driving. His complaint says authorities accused him of attempting to smuggle a customer's family members into the United States. He says he has been working the two jobs to support his parents, who are permanent residents that have been in America since he was a baby. He had no criminal history but found himself facing deportation, according the lawsuit. An immigration judge rejected the smuggling charges, and Arreola was never criminally charged. But the Department of Homeland Security revoked his DACA status, the suit says. Arreola was granted DACA status three times, in 2012, 2014 and again in 2016. In a statement, he said he and his girlfriend are expecting their first child and he wants to stay in the country to raise his son. "I don't want an unfounded accusation to take everything I love away from me," Arreola said. Inland Empire-Immigrant Youth Collective joined Arreola in filing the lawsuit. They want an order that finds the practice of revoking immigrants' DACA status is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs also want the government to reinstate DACA status to those who have lost it or give them a proper opportunity to challenge their change in status. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. UNITED STATES: Whitaker Files Suit v. Dept. of Commerce ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Department of Commerce. The case is styled as Stephen Whitaker and David Gram, all similarly situated parties, Plaintiffs v. Department of Commerce, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00192-gwc (D. Vt., October 6, 2017). The Department of Commerce works with businesses, universities, communities, and the Nation's workers to promote job creation, economic growth, sustainable development, and improved standards of living.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Appel, Esq. 30 Main Street, Suite 350 Burlington, VT 05401 Tel: (802) 595-1544 Email: rappel@robertappellaw.com VERTS MEDITERRANEAN: Faces "Young" Suit in S. Dist. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verts Mediterranean Grill, Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Verts Mediterranean Grill, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 07668 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2017). VERTS Mediterranean Grill is an Austin-based fast casual restaurant chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Bronson Lipsky LLP 630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com VITAMIN WORLD: Faces "Kiler" Class Suit in East. Dist. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Vitamin World, Inc. The case is captioned Marion Kiler, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Vitamin World, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-05612 (E.D.N.Y., September 26, 2017). Vitamin World, Inc. is a retailer of vitamins and nutritional supplements. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 Facsimile: (718) 504-7555 E-mail: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com VOLKSWAGEN: MDL Panel Sends Cases to California ----------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judicial panel has sent two closely watched cases to California involving Wells Fargo's sales practices and antitrust class actions related to the Volkswagen emissions scandal. In an order on October 4, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation sent about 25 cases alleging a cartel among several German automakers to Charles Breyer, the San Francisco federal judge who oversaw hundreds of class actions brought over a "defeat device" that allowed Volkswagen vehicles to cheat emissions tests. Those cases settled last year for $14.7 billion. Breyer, who also is one of seven judges on the MDL panel, was a "logical choice" given the "potential for factual overlap" with the Volkswagen emissions cases, wrote MDL Panel Chairwoman Sarah Vance. "According to some plaintiffs, the VW defendants' adherence to this illegal agreement necessitated the cheat at the heart of the VW 'clean diesel' MDL via emissions cheating technology supplied by defendant Robert Bosch (which is a defendant in some cases in this litigation," she wrote. The cases were filed in the wake of a July article in the German magazine Der Spiegel revealing that Audi, Volkswagen, Porsche, BMW and Daimler conspired for 21 years to exchange confidential information about the manufacturing of their vehicles, including the device at the heart of the emissions scandal. All the carmakers and many of the plaintiffs' attorneys had supported sending the cases to New Jersey, where nine of the cases had been filed. In a somewhat more uncharacteristic move, the panel sent 14 cases against San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co. to U.S. District Judge Andrew Guilford, who is overseeing three of the lawsuits in Santa Ana, California. The lawsuits claim that Wells Fargo steered its auto financing customers to National General Insurance Co., which signed them up to insurance they didn't want. It's one of several scandals rocking Wells Fargo, which paid $185 million in fines and settled class actions for $142 million following disclosures that as many as two million accounts were opened without the consent of customers. Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan appeared before the Senate Banking Committee to defend arbitration agreements with class action waivers. The settlement over the fake accounts, however, could unravel in the wake of revelations last month that 1.4 million more accounts were opened than previously disclosed. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria is overseeing that settlement and, on October 4, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar refused to dismiss a related shareholder derivative class action. Both judges are in San Francisco. But in the auto insurance cases, the panel appeared influenced by plaintiffs' attorneys who had supported Southern California because two companies named as defendants -- a subsidiary called Wells Fargo Dealer Services and Balboa Insurance Co. -- were based in Irvine, California. Two individuals from Wells Fargo Dealer Services, former President Dawn Martin Harp and Bill Katafias, former head of indirect auto lending, also were named as defendants. "Moreover, it is alleged that key entities and individuals with direct responsibility for the alleged conduct in this litigation are located in this district and, therefore, relevant documents and witnesses may be located there," Vance wrote. "Indeed, at oral argument, Wells Fargo represented that the primary witnesses would be found in the Central District of California." Last year, Wells Fargo Dealer Services and Wells Fargo paid more than $24 million to federal regulators after illegally possessing 413 cars owned by service members. [GN] WELCH FOODS: NJ Judge Moves Fruit Snacks CA Across the River ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a federal judge in Trenton has ordered a New Jersey-based class action suit against Welch Foods Inc., maker of the popular Welch's fruit snacks that plaintiffs allege aren't as "natural" as advertised, must be moved to the Eastern District of New York. U.S. District Judge Anne Thompson ordered the move on Oct. 5 after finding that nearly identical litigation has already been filed and is in discovery in the Eastern District. "Although the causes of action on the New York litigation are under different state law . . . the nature of the issues, the relief sought, the products in question and the defendants all substantially overlap," Thompson said in Hall v. Welch Foods. "Plaintiff cannot maintain essentially the same litigation in two separate district courts, creating unnecessary burdens on the courts and risking the inefficiency and embarrassment of conflicting judgments," Thompson said. The lead plaintiff in the New Jersey case, Lauren Hall, is suing Welch Foods, based in Concord, Massachusetts, and one of its licensees, Promotion in Motion Companies, based in Media, Pennsylvania, over its fruit snacks. The lawsuit alleges breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, common-law fraud, violations of the state Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment and violations of the state Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notification Act. Hall says the companies falsely claimed that their snacks contained "significant amounts of natural fruit" and said that they were nutritious and healthy when they actually contained large amounts of artificial flavors and ingredients. Hall initially filed her lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court. Welch then moved the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Thompson had two competing motions: One by Welch and PIM to move the case to the Eastern District, and another from Hall asking that it be remanded to the Superior Court. Thompson said the case needed to be moved to the Eastern District so as not to waste judicial resources on essentially the same matter. One of Hall's lawyers, Joshua Bauchner, Esq. -- jb@ansellgrimm.com -- of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC said the firm was prepared to litigate the case in the Eastern District. "The defendants can run, but they can't hide," said Bauchner, of Ansell Grimm & Aaron in Woodland Park. "We will pursue claims against them wherever necessary." The lead attorney for Welch Foods and PIM, David King, Esq. -- dking@herrick.com -- of the Newark office of Herrick Feinstein, said his clients were pleased with the ruling and are ready to proceed in the Eastern District. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Court Certifies Class & Subclasses in "Nguyen" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Joseph C. Spero entered an order in the lawsuit styled HUY NGUYEN v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 3:15-cv-05239-JCS (N.D. Cal.), certifying these class and subclasses: Class: All persons who are or have been employed, at any time from August 25, 2011 through December 31, 2016, by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association in California under the job titles Home Mortgage Consultant, Home Mortgage Consultant Jr. and Private Mortgage Banker (collectively "HMCS"); Expense Reimbursement Sub-Class: All persons who are or have been employed as HMCs, at any time from August 25, 2011 through December 31, 2015, by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association in California and who participated in either Wells Fargo' s individual HMC website program or FASTMail program; Commission Pay Sub-Class: All persons who are or have been employed as HMCs, at any time from August 25, 2011 through December 31, 2016, by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association in California; Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class: All persons who have been employed as HMCs and separated from employment (either by involuntary termination or resignation), at any time from August 25, 2011 through December 31, 2016, by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association in California and who did not timely receive all of their wages at time of separation. A Further Case Management Conference is set for November 3, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. The parties are instructed to meet and confer and submit a joint Case Management Conference Statement that includes a proposed schedule for the remainder of the case by October 27, 2017. Huy Nguyen asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of Home Mortgage Consultants, who are or were employed by Wells Fargo. Following summary judgment, the claims that remain in the case are based on two alleged substantive violations of the California Labor Code. First, the Plaintiff asserts that Wells Fargo's policy of not reimbursing HMCs for certain marketing programs, namely, the use of Wells Fargo's HMC Web sites and FASTMail program, violates California Labor Code Section 2802. Second, the Plaintiff contends Wells Fargo does not timely pay commissions to HMCs based on when the commissions are earned under California law, in violation of California Labor Code Section 204. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vxyb5zIV WELLS FARGO: Bosses Can't Dodge Shareholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News, reports that Wells Fargo's board of directors and senior executives cannot dodge a class action accusing them of misleading investors about the phony accounts scandal that has cost the bank more than $300 million in penalties, a federal judge ruled. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar refused to dismiss most claims against 15 members of Wells Fargo's board of directors and five senior executives on October 4. In a 49-page order, Tigar found the executives and directors were made aware as early as 2011 about the bank's sham accounts scandal, which the bank acknowledged in August this year included as many as 3.5 million unauthorized accounts. Despite knowing of the fraud, shareholders say, the managers continued to insist that Wells Fargo's cross-selling program was successful and critical to the bank's revenue growth. The San Francisco-based bank's "Gr-Eight" cross-selling initiative pressured its employees to open at least eight accounts for each customer, leading employees to create unauthorized accounts to meet the aggressive sales quotas. Shareholders say the bank misled investors by touting the company's "adherence to regulatory guidelines" in public filings and including the fraudulent, cross-sold accounts in those filings. In addition to the legal penalties, the scandal has caused Wells Fargo untold harm in reputational damage, plus the costs of extensive advertising, in The New York Times and other national publications, trying to assure consumers that the bank is addressing the fraud. Tigar wrote: "The Court finds that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the director defendants made material and misleading statements through their participation in and approval of Wells Fargo's public filings." Tigar found several red flags that should have alerted Wells Fargo to the scope of the scandal long before it paid $185 million to federal regulators in September 2016 for the misconduct. Those red flags include former CEO John Stumpf's testimony to Congress that he was made aware of "issues" related to sham accounts in 2011; earlier communications between employees and board members about the fraudulent activity; lawsuits filed against the bank alleging creation of fraudulent accounts; a December 2013 article in the Los Angeles Times exposing the scandal; investigations by federal regulators as early as 2012; widespread employee terminations apparently aimed at silencing whistleblowers; and the company's emphasis on cross-selling in financial reports. Tigar concluded that shareholders presented sufficient allegations to sue three senior executives -- CEO and former COO Timothy Sloan, former vice president of community banking Carrie Tolstedt, and CFO John Shrewsberry -- for issuing allegedly misleading statements. Tigar also said shareholders can sue former and current executives Stumpf, Sloan, Tolstedt, Shrewsberry, and chief risk officer Michael Loughlin, on allegations of insider trading. The investors say the executives used their inside knowledge to profit from selling shares back to Wells Fargo through the bank's share repurchase program. Tigar dismissed without prejudice securities law claims against Loughlin, finding the shareholders failed to allege the chief risk manager made any specific false or misleading statements. And Tigar refused to let the investors hold the bank's managers liable to cover Wells Fargo's legal costs for to its alleged violations of federal securities laws. He found that claim unripe because no judgment has been reached on whether the bank or its directors and executives violated securities laws. But Tigar gave shareholders a green light to seek rescission of contracts between Wells Fargo and the accused managers for allegedly violating securities laws while performing their job duties. Tigar dismissed California law claims with prejudice, finding that because Wells Fargo is incorporated in Delaware, its managers can be sued for violating only Delaware's corporate misconduct laws. Wells Fargo and attorneys for both sides did not respond to emails and phone calls seeking comment on October 5 afternoon. Wells Fargo is represented by Brendan P. Cullen, Esq. -- cullenb@sullcrom.com -- with Sullivan & Cromwell in Palo Alto. The shareholders' lead attorney is Richard Heimann, Esq. -- rheimann@lchb.com -- with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in San Francisco. WESTAR ENERGY: Pill Seeks to Enjoin Merger With Great Plains ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID PILL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WESTAR ENERGY, INC., MOLLIE H. CARTER, JERRY B. FARLEY, MARK A. RUELLE, CHARLES Q. CHANDLER IV, R. A. EDWARDS III, SANDRA A.J. LAWRENCE, RICHARD L. HAWLEY, B. ANTHONY ISAAC, S. CARL SODERSTROM, JR., KING ENERGY, INC., GREAT PLAINS ENERGY INCORPORATED and MONARCH ENERGY HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv- 04086 (D. Kan., September 21, 2017), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate two proposed transactions or, in the event the Proposed Transactions are consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' wrongdoing. The action stems from two related proposed transactions announced on July 10, 2017, pursuant to which Westar Energy, Inc. and Great Plains Energy Incorporated will be combined in a "merger of equals" under a new holding company named Monarch Energy Holding, Inc. Pursuant to the July 9, 2017 amended and restated agreement and plan of merger between Westar, Great Plains, Monarch, and certain related entities, in one proposed transaction, Great Plains will merge with and into Monarch, with Monarch to continue as the surviving corporation. In the other proposed transaction, Westar will merge with and into King Energy, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Monarch, with Westar to continue as the surviving corporation. Upon completion of the Mergers, Monarch will be the parent of both Great Plains and Westar, with the shareholders of Great Plains and Westar becoming the shareholders of Monarch. Westar is a Kansas corporation with its principal executive offices located in Topeka, Kansas. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Westar is the largest electric utility in Kansas, and provides electric generation, transmission and distribution services to approximately 700,000 customers in Kansas. Westar provides these services in central and northern Kansas, including the cities of Topeka, Lawrence, Manhattan, Salina and Hutchinson. Westar's wholly owned subsidiary, Kansas Gas and Electric Company, provides these services in south-central and southeastern Kansas, including the city of Wichita. Great Plains is a Missouri corporation headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. Great Plains is a public utility holding company with wholly-owned direct and indirect subsidiaries that include Kansas City Power & Light Company, KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company, and GPE Transmission Holding Company, LLC. Monarch is a Missouri corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Great Plains, which was formed solely for the purpose of effectuating the Mergers and has no prior operations. Monarch will be renamed to a yet-to-be-determined name prior to or upon completion of the Mergers. King is a Kansas corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Monarch, which was formed solely for the purpose of effectuating the Mergers and has no prior operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle Moe Witte, Esq. JOSEPH, HOLLANDER & CRAFT LLC 500 North Market Wichita, KS 67214 Telephone: (316) 262-9393 Facsimile: (316) 262-9006 E-mail: mmoe@josephhollander.com - and - Christopher M. Joseph, Esq. JOSEPH, HOLLANDER & CRAFT LLC 1508 SW Topeka Blvd. Topeka, KS 66612 Telephone: (785) 234-3272 Facsimile: (785) 234-3610 E-mail: cjoseph@josephhollander.com YAHOO INC: Asked to Weigh in On New Data Breach Disclosures ----------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge has asked both Yahoo Inc. and plaintiffs pursuing claims against the company over its massive data breach to weigh in on what the company's disclosure of additional affected customers means to the case. Yahoo parent company Verizon announced that roughly 3 billion accounts that were active August 2013 were likely affected by the hack. The disclosure tripled the number previously disclosed by Yahoo. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California, who is overseeing multidistrict litigation on the breach, issued an order on October 5 pushing back the date that the parties are set to file a joint case management statement and ordered Yahoo to expedite producing discovery regarding the recent disclosure. "Yahoo's recent disclosure may impact the causes of action alleged in this case, which may delay the case schedule," she wrote in the brief two-page order. In August, Koh allowed portions of the plaintiffs' case to survive a motion to dismiss. "All plaintiffs have alleged a risk of future identity theft, in addition to loss of value of their personal identification information," wrote Koh at the time. Reached by phone, John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said "the biggest class action in history just became bigger." "We don't have many more people on the face of the Earth." Yanchunis said that besides expanding the size of the affected class, the latest disclosure raises questions about Yahoo's handling of the breach. Yanchunis said that with the pace of the litigation, he would have expected the company to discover all of its 2013 account holders were affected sooner. "It certainly raises the question to me of 'What kind of forensic analysis did they do in 2014 when they discovered the exfiltration?'" he said. Yahoo's lead lawyer in the case, Ann Marie Mortimer of Hunton & Williams, didn't immediately respond to an email message on October 5 afternoon. [GN] YUMMY FOODS: "Macrae" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MACRAE, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. YUMMY FOODS, LLC, an entity unknown; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC679159 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 12, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, Business and Professions Code, Unfair Competition Law, and California common law. The complaint challenges Defendants' systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the stated provisions of the Labor Code and corresponding IWC Wage Order against the putative class of employees. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants jointly and severally acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in (1) failing to timely pay all wages due and owing upon termination of employment, (2) unlawfully taking gratuity left for employees, (3) failing to reimburse all necessary work-related expenses, (4) failing to maintain accurate records, and (5) engaging in unfair business practices. Ymmy Foods, LLC runs Yummy.com, a grocery delivery service in Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq. Brian G. Lee, Esq. YOON LAW APC One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612 0988 Facsimile: (213) 947 1211 - and - Joseph M. Hekmat, Esq. HEKMAT LAW GROUP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (424) 888 0848 Facsimile: (424) 270 0242 * SC Weighs Whether Workers Must Face Arbitrations Alone -------------------------------------------------------- Yuki Noguchi, writing for NPR, reports that suing one's employer can be scary enough, but it's even scarier doing it alone. Many employers are increasingly requiring workers to sign agreements requiring them to resolve workplace disputes about anything from harassment to discrimination to wage theft through individual arbitration. In other words, the language does not permit them to join forces with colleagues who might have similar complaints. Whether such prohibitions on collective arbitration are legal is at issue in a trio of cases heard by the Supreme Court this week. With Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch on the bench, many experts say a ruling against the workers in these cases could result in massive changes in how nearly all workplace disputes will be resolved, and how labor laws are enforced. To understand what this means from the perspective of workers, consider the case against Sterling Jewelers, which operates the Jared, Kay and Zales brands. Nearly a decade ago, 15 women who worked for Sterling started complaining that they'd been denied pay and promotions given to male counterparts. At the time, they weren't aware of each other's complaints, because at the time of their hiring, they'd all signed paperwork agreeing such complaints could only be heard in private arbitration. "Most of them had no way of knowing that the others had similar disputes, because that was all kept confidential" in the arbitration process, says Joe Sellers, the women's attorney. A key turning point in that case, he says, came when the women were permitted to consolidate their case into a class action. They were able to do so because their employment agreements did not explicitly prevent them from joining forces. That meant they could pool resources, hire experts and retain attorneys they couldn't have secured on their own. Their class-action case now covers 69,000 current and former female Sterling employees, and will be heard next spring. Sellers says if the Supreme Court allows employers to block workers from collectively arbitrating, it would hurt clients like his trying to bring claims in the future. "They will have no benefit of being able to work together, to collect evidence together, see that there's evidence of a pattern of conduct, which was very important to them in being able to prove their claims, and in leading a number of them to realize they were not alone," Sellers says. "Without it, I think many of them would have simply abandoned their claims because it was either too risky or too expensive or too hard." Employment arbitration agreements are similar in nature to the fine-print consumer arbitration agreements found in anything from credit card to cellphone contracts, which effectively waive consumers' rights to bring claims to court. After the Supreme Court upheld those arbitration agreements in 2011 and in a subsequent case, employers started adding similar language in employment agreements. Now, many large employers -- from tech giants to retail and restaurant chains -- include prohibitions on collective workplace arbitrations. The left-leaning Economic Policy Institute estimates that about 60 million American workers are covered by such agreements, and as many as 25 million of them cannot arbitrate collectively. "Most workers in the United States aren't even aware of what arbitration is, never mind that they've signed this kind of agreement, maybe on their first day at work in a stack of papers, or maybe through clicking a box through their orientation materials," says Ceilidh Gao, an attorney for the National Employment Law Project, a workers' rights group. Gao and others say collective action, whether it's union organizing or class-action lawsuits, are a key tenet of labor law, with a long history of government protection. They argue employers should not be able to nullify that by inserting a clause in some paperwork. Gao says most workers drop their cases, instead of going it alone, which means employers aren't forced to correct systemic workplace violations. David Seligman, a Denver attorney for Towards Justice, which represents low-wage workers, says many prospective clients come in with complaints that they weren't paid overtime, or were forced to work without pay, but discover they are covered by these employment clauses. "For many folks, if you don't have the opportunity to act together in a lawsuit against your employer, you're never really going to file a lawsuit at all," he says. A national arbitrators group also sided with workers' groups in these cases. "This really could set us back a century," says Matthew Finkin, a professor at the University of Illinois who wrote the friend-of- the-court brief on behalf of the National Academy of Arbitrators in the cases being heard by the Supreme Court. He says normally, he would expect employers to argue in favor of resolving multiple similar disputes, together, instead of going through many separate, individual arbitrations. Instead, Finkin says, employers are banking that individuals will simply not bring their cases, and employers will avoid public scrutiny of their poor workplace practices. Employers argue that individual disputes are resolved faster and cheaper. They say class-action suits can take years in the courts to resolve, and primarily benefit the lawyers who bring such cases. Harry Johnson III, a former Republican member of the National Labor Relations Board who now represents employers, says class- action claims are often abused, giving a single worker the power to claim they're bringing the dispute on behalf of others. "If that claim gets aggregated, then that person -- regardless of the merits of the case -- instantly has a much more valuable case," he says. That leaves employers open to what he calls "blackmail settlements," where a single worker can force a larger settlement simply by threatening collective action. Johnson argues an employer that is systematically misbehaving would face multiple arbitration cases, which would become expensive, providing sufficient financial incentive to stop the problem behavior. Employer groups also argue these agreements are contracts that the National Labor Relations Board cannot invalidate. "There's a bigger issue at stake here, and that is the reach of the NLRB and whether or not it has the authority to reach down into employment contracts to this degree," says Linda Kelly, general counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers. If the employment agreement is signed by the worker, she says, a contract is still a contract. [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 * * *