/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/171107.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 7, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 220 Headlines ABIGAIL KIRSCH: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York ACCESS DENTAL: Faces "Hernandez" Suit in Cal. Superior Court ADVANCE STORES: Faces "Grubbs" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ADVANCED MICRO: Settlement in "Hatamian" Suit Has Prelim Approval ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Settlement in "McClendon" Has Final Approval ALLIED COLLECTION: "Simmons" Disputes Deceptive Collection Letter ANTARES PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey ANTHELIO HEALTHCARE: Faces "Hoskins" Suit in Cal. Super Court ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE: "Hendrix" Suit Removed to E.D. Ark. BEACH LANE: Rent-Regulated Tenants File Class Action BJ INSPECTIONS: "Russo" Suit Transferred From Louisiana to Ohio BOWLERLAND BILDINIC: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York BRAZTECH INT'L: Bedwell's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaim Denied BRETON INTERNATIONAL: "Delacruz" Suit Alleges ADA Violations BURGER KING: Faces "Tarr" Class Suit Over FACTA Breach CENTURYLINK GROUP: "Chavez" Suit Removed to D. Minn. CENTURYLINK INC: "Gonsior" Suit Removed to D. Minn. CEVA LOGISTICS: "Garcia" Class Settlement Has Final Approval CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Lutz" CHILDRENS' PLACE: Judge Stays PMWA Overtime Class Action COMMUNICATIONS TEST: Accused by "Marshall" Suit of Violating FCRA DIANA CONTAINERSHIPS: Robins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y. DRYCARE RESTORATION: "Abante Rooter" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations E.I. DUPONT: James Scott Farrin Files GenX Chemical Class Action EQUIFAX INC: Small Businesses Seek Damages Over Data Breach EQUIFAX INC: Pellitteri Files Suit Over Data Breach EQUIFAX INC: "Turner" Seeks Damages Over Data Breach EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Henderson" Suit Arising From Data Breach EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Mass. Rules on Security Deposit Act Issue XCEL ENERGY: "Calvert" Suit Alleges Labor Violations FINANCIAL FREEDOM: "Saris" Suit Alleges Discrimination GLACIER COUNTY, MT: High Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Taxpayers Suit GOOD CHOWS: Court Approves $22,000 Settlement in Labor Suit GREAT PLAINS: "Bushansky" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations H&M HENNES: Loses Bid for Partial Summary Judgment in "Lao" HAWAIIAN TELCOM: "Franchi" Suit Alleges SEC Violation HIRO SUSHI: Court Approves $12,000 Labor Suit Settlement HUDDLE HOUSE: Hughes Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages HUDSON SEAFOOD: "Carlin" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA and SCPWA J.JILL INC: "Branen" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations JEHOVA'S WITNESSES: Faces $66-Mil. Sexual Abuse Class Action KARAKOSUITS.COM: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York KELLOGG CO: Court Allows Limited Discovery in "Smith" LAN GARDEN: "Zhen" Suit Seeks Withheld Tips, Overtime Pay LENDINGCLUB: Judge Allows Investors' Class Action Can Proceed LEFRAK ORGANIZATION: Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 7 LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Comments on Securities Class Action Dismissal LINCOLN HILLS: Faces Closure Amid Inmates' Class Action LITCO PETROLEUM: Cranford Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages MC ELECTRONICS: Faces "Vazquez" Suit in California Superior Ct. MDL 2445: Court Dismisses Suboxone Antitrust Suit Against I-PLC MDL 2741: "Sweat" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. MDL 2792: "Alexander" Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma MDL 2792: "McCabe" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Cooper Street Prisoners Suit MID CITY GYM: Court Approves $50,000 Settlement in Labor Suit MO'S FISHERMAN: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Galvez Claims MONSANTO COMPANY: "Batch" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. MONTEREY FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Remands Class Action to State Court NASDAQ OMX: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Rabin" Securities Suit NATIONAL PROMOTION: Magee Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages NPC INT'L: "Collins" Stayed Pending SCOTUS Ruling in "Lewis" OAKMONT SENIOR: Must Show Why "Lollock" Must Not Be Remanded PETLAND KENNESAW: Sued for Allegedly Selling Sick Puppies PHILIP MORRIS: Wins $5.3MM Verdict in Non-Engle Tobacco Case POINT BLANK: Faces Class Action Over Ballistic System Vests POLLO OPERATIONS: Approval of Revised "Preman" Class Deal Denied PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations PROGRESSUS THERAPY: "Shelton" Settlement Bid Filing Due Dec. 22 RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Accused by "Manopla" Suit of Invading Privacy READY SECURITY: "Lewis" Action to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay RENT-A-CENTER INC: Can Partly Compel Arbitration in "Blair" Suit RENT-A-CENTER INC: Court to Hear Class Claims at Cert. Hearing RIO TINTO: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action in N.Y. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Sanda" Product Suit Transferred to D. Okla. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Mullford" Suit Transferred to D. Okla. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Raabe" Product Suit Transferred to D. Okla. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Kellas" Product Suit Transferred to Oklahoma SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Anderson" Suit Transferred to D. Okla. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Lane" Suit Moved to W. Dist. Oklahoma SANOFI-PASTEUR: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $61.5MM SANTANDER BANK: "Karlberg" Remanded to Philadelphia State Court SCHARFMAN ORGANIZATION: Tenants Sue Over Illegally High Rents SHOWPLACE ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York SKECHERS USA: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action SPENCER BUILDING: Faces "Gomez" Suit in California Superior Court ST. LOUIS, MO: ACLU Class Action Over Unlawful Assembly Ongoing STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Rosario" FCRA Suit STATE SECURITY: "Lipscomb" Action to Recover Minimum, OT Pay TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Peoples" Product Suit Transferred to E.D. La. TEZOS: Investors' Class Action Unlikely to Succeed UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Dec. 1 Reply Deadline in "Kalanick" UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Morgen" Suit in S.D. New York UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss "Haddock" Agent Orange Suit Denied US FOODS INC: Lit'l Pepper Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. VILLAGIO OF SAWGRASS: "Bonilla" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations WELLS FARGO: Nov. 15 Initial CMC in Securities Suit Vacated WHITESTONE LANES: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York WOODLAKE RESORT: Residents Sue Over Plummeting Property Values XOMA CORP: Court Dismisses Individual Claims in "Markette" * CUNA Comments on Treasury Report on CFPB's Arbitration Rule * Employers Face Illinois Biometric Class Action Threat * Judges Sanction Two Law Firms Over Frivolous Tobacco Suits * Kilpatrick Townsend Attorneys Discusses Parens Patriea Suits * Treasury Joins Fight Over Class Actions, Balks at CFPB Study ********* ABIGAIL KIRSCH: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Abigail Kirsch At Tappan Hill, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Baldelli and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Abigail Kirsch At Tappan Hill, Inc, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 08056 (S.D.N.Y., October 19, 2017). Abigail Kirsch At Tappan Hill, Inc. was founded in 1989. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption.[BN] The Plaintiff 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 ACCESS DENTAL: Faces "Hernandez" Suit in Cal. Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Access Dental Plan. The case is styled as Michelle Hernandez, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Access Dental Plan, Access Dental Plan Inc., Access Insurance Co., Bay Access Dental Inc., Reza Abbaszadeh DDS Inc., Sacramento Access Dental Inc. and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2017- 00220944-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., October 19, 2017). Access Dental Plan, Inc. offers dental services in California. It provides coverage for various state government programs, such as Medi-Cal managed care programs and healthy families program, which offer preventive, restorations/fillings, extractions, root canals, and crowns and denture procedures.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. Lawyers for Justice, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Tel: (818) 265-1020 Fax: (818) 265-1021 ADVANCE STORES: Faces "Grubbs" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Trevin Grubbs, individually and on behalf of similarly-situated individuals v. Advance Stores Company, Inc., d/b/a Advance Auto Parts, Case No. 4:17-cv-02647-RBH (D.S.C., October 2, 2017), is brought individually and as a collective action for alleged unpaid overtime compensation, for liquidated damages, and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Advance Stores Company, Inc., doing business as Advance Auto Parts, is a corporation having multiple retail outlets in South Carolina, including the outlet at which the Plaintiff worked located at 1370 3rd Avenue, in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy L. Gaffney, Esq. GAFFNEY LEWIS & EDWARDS, LLC 3700 Forest Drive, Suite 400 Columbia, SC 29204 Telephone: (803) 790-8838 Facsimile: (803) 790-8841 E-mail: agaffney@glelawfirm.com ADVANCED MICRO: Settlement in "Hatamian" Suit Has Prelim Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned BABAK HATAMIAN and LUSSA DENNJ SALVATORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RORY P. READ, THOMAS J. SEIFERT, RICHARD A. BERGMAN, AND LISA T. SU, Defendants, Case No. 4:14-cv-00226-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge U.S. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement. As of Oct. 9, 2017, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. On March 16, 2016, the Court certified a Class of all persons and entities that, during the period from April 4, 2011 through Oct. 18, 2012, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the publicly traded common stock of AMD. Judge Rogers preliminarily approved the Settlement, subject to further consideration at the Settlement Hearing to be held on Feb. 27, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. The Judge approved the form, substance and requirements of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and the Proof of Claim and Release form. She approved the retention of Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. as the Claims Administrator. The Claims Administrator will cause the Settlement Notice and the Proof of Claim on or before 10 business days after entry of the Preliminary Approval Order to all Class Members who can be identified with reasonable effort, including by using the mailing records obtained in connection with the Class Notice. AMD, to the extent it has not already done so, will use its best efforts to obtain and provide to the Class Counsel, or the Claims Administrator, its transfer records in electronic searchable form containing the names and addresses of purchasers of the publicly traded common stock of AMD during the Class Period, to the extent that information is available, no later than five business days after entry of the Preliminary Approval Order. In the previously disseminated Class Notice, brokers and other nominees ("Nominees") were advised that if, for the beneficial interest of any person or entity other than themselves, they purchased AMD publicly traded common stock during the Class Period they must either: (i) request from the administrator sufficient copies of the Class Notice to forward to all such beneficial owners, and forward them to all such beneficial owners; or (ii) provide a list of the names and addresses of all such beneficial owners to the administrator. a. For Nominees who previously chose the first option (i.e., elected to mail the Class Notice directly to beneficial owners), the Claims Administrator will forward the same number of Claim Packets to such Nominees, and the Nominees shall, within seven calendar days of receipt of the Claim Packets, mail them to the beneficial owners. Unless the Nominee has identified additional beneficial owners whose names and addresses were not previously provided to the Claims Administrator, such Nominees need not take any further action; b. For Nominees who previously chose the second option (i.e., provided a list of names and addresses of beneficial holders to the Claims Administrator), the Claims Administrator will promptly mail a copy of the Claim Packet to each of the beneficial owners whose names and addresses the Nominee previously supplied. Unless the Nominee has identified additional beneficial owners whose names and addresses were not previously provided to the Claims Administrator, such Nominees need not take any further action; c. For Nominees that have identified additional beneficial owners who were previously identified in connection with the Class Notice, such Nominees will either: (i) within seven calendar days of receipt of the Claim Packet, provide a list of the names and addresses of all such additional beneficial owners to the Claims Administrator, or (ii) within seven calendar days of receipt of the Claim Packet, request from the Claims Administrator sufficient copies of the Claim Packet to forward to all such additional beneficial owners which the Nominee shall, within seven calendar days of receipt of the Claim Packets from the Claims Administrator, mail to the beneficial owners; d. The Nominees who elect to send the Claim Packet to their beneficial owners will also send a statement to the Claims Administrator confirming that the mailing was made and will retain their mailing records for use in connection with any further notices that may be provided in the Action; e. Upon full and timely compliance with this Order, the Nominees who mail the Claim Packets to beneficial owners, or who provide additional names and addresses of beneficial owners to the Claims Administrator, may seek reimbursement of their reasonable expenses actually incurred in complying with this Order by providing the Claims Administrator with proper documentation supporting the expenses for which reimbursement is sought. Such properly documented expenses incurred by Nominees in compliance with the terms of the Order will be paid from the Settlement Fund, with any disputes as to the reasonableness or documentation of expenses subject to review by the Court. The Class Counsel shall, at least 14 calendar days before the Settlement Hearing, file with the Court proof of mailing of the Settlement Notice and Proof of Claim. The Court approved the form of the Summary Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses ("Summary Notice"), and directed that the Class Counsel will cause the Summary Notice to be published in Investor's Business Daily and be transmitted over PR Newswire within 14 calendar days of the Notice Date. The Class Counsel shall, at least 14 calendar days before the Settlement Hearing, file with the Court proof of publication of the Summary Notice. In order to be eligible to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund, in the event the Settlement is effected in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, each claimant will submit a properly executed Proof of Claimto the Claims Administrator, at the address indicated in the Settlement Notice, postmarked or electronically submitted no later than 14 calendar days before the Settlement Hearing and submit to the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the claim submitted. Any Class Member may enter an appearance in the Action, at his, her or its own expense, individually or through counsel of his, her or its own choice. A Class Member wishing to make such an exclusion request will mail the request no later than 21 calendar days before the Settlement Hearing. Any such Person who wishes to opt-back into the Class must either, individually or through counsel, request to opt-back into the Class in writing to the Claims Administrator within the time and in the manner set forth in the Settlement Notice, no later than 21 calendar days before the Settlement Hearing, at the address set forth in the Settlement Notice. The Court will consider any Class Member's objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the application for an award of attorneys' fees or expenses only if such Class Member has (i) served by hand or by mail his, her or its written objection and supporting papers, such that they are postmarked on or before 21 calendar days before the Settlement Hearing, and mailed to the Class Counsel, Jonathan Gardner, Labaton Sucharow LLP, 140 Broadway, New York, NY 10005 and James M. Hughes, Motley Rice LLC, 28 Bridgeside Blvd., Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464, and the Defendants' Counsel, Matthew Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, 140 Scott Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 and Patrick E. Gibbs, Cooley LLP, 3175 Hanover Street, Palo Alto, California 94304; and (ii) filed said objections and supporting papers with the Clerk of the Court, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. As provided in the Stipulation, before the Effective Date, the Class Counsel may pay the Claims Administrator fees and costs associated with giving notice to the Class and the review of claims and administration of the Settlement in an amount up to $500,000 out of the Settlement Fund without further approval from the Defendants and without further order of the Court. All papers in support of the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and the Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses will be filed with the Court and served on or before 35 calendar days before the Settlement Hearing. Any reply papers are to be filed with the Court and served no later than 14 calendar days before the Settlement Hearing. No later than seven calendar days before the Settlement Hearing, the Class Counsel will file a submission with the Court concerning the claims received to date. Judge Rogers approved the passage of title and ownership of the Settlement Fund to the Escrow Agent in accordance with the terms and obligations of the Stipulation. All funds held in escrow will be deemed and considered to be in custodia legis of the Court, and will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court until such time as such funds will be disbursed pursuant to the Stipulation and/or further order of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/IqwpLL from Leagle.com. BabakHatamian and LussuDennj Salvatore are represented by Joy Ann Kruse, Esq. -- jkruse@lchb.com -- LIEFFCABRASERHEIMANN& BERNSTEIN, LLP. Lussu Dennj Salvatore, Plaintiff, represented by Joy Ann Kruse, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. are represented by Patrick Edward Gibbs, Esq. -- pgibbs@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP -- Jason C. Hegt, Esq. -- jason.hegt@lw.com -- Matthew Rawlinson, Esq. -- matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- and -- Melanie Marilyn Blunschi, Esq. -- melante.blunschi@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP. Rory P. Read, Defendant, represented by Patrick Edward Gibbs, Cooley LLP, Jason C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, Matthew Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, Melanie Marilyn Blunschi, Latham & Watkins LLP & Whitney Weber, Latham and Watkins LLP. Thomas J. Seifert, Defendant, represented by Patrick Edward Gibbs, Cooley LLP, Jason C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, Matthew Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, Melanie Marilyn Blunschi, Latham & Watkins LLP & Whitney Weber, Latham and Watkins LLP. Lisa T. Su, Defendant, represented by Patrick Edward Gibbs, Cooley LLP, Jason C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, Matthew Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, Melanie Marilyn Blunschi, Latham & Watkins LLP & Whitney Weber, Latham and Watkins LLP. Richard A. Bergman, Defendant, represented by Patrick Edward Gibbs, Cooley LLP, Jason C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, Matthew Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, Melanie Marilyn Blunschi, Latham & Watkins LLP & Whitney Weber, Latham and Watkins LLP. KBC Asset Management NV, Movant, represented by Carol C. Villegas -- cvillegas@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Michael J Pendell -- mpendell@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Sharon Maine Lee -- slee@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, William S. Norton -- bnorton@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, James Michael Hughes -- jhughes@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Joy Ann Kruse -- jkruse@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Katherine Collinge Lubin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Max Nikolaus Gruetzmacher -- mgruetzmacher@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Meredith B. Miller -- mbmiller@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, William H. Narwold -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC & Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Movant, represented by Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Movant, represented by Alec T Coquin -- acoquin@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Carol C. Villegas, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jonathan Gardner, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Paul J Scarlato, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Sharon Maine Lee, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Yah E. Demann -- ydemann@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Katherine Collinge Lubin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicole Catherine Lavallee -- nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio & William S. Norton, Motley Rice LLC. Christopher Hamilton, David Hamilton, Movants, represented by Willem F. Jonckheer -- wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP. Jake Ha, Movant, represented by Avraham Noam Wagner -- avi@thewagnerfirm.com -- The Wagner Firm & Kara M Wolke -- kwolke@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Settlement in "McClendon" Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JIMMY (BILLY) McCLENDON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, et al., Defendants. v. E.M., R.L., W.A., D.J., P.S., and N.W., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Intervenors, Case No. 95 CV 024 JAP/KBM (D. N.M.), Judge James A. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement between the City Defendants, the Plaintiff Class, and the Plaintiff Intervenor Sub Class. The class action lawsuit was brought in 1995 against the City Defendants and the County Defendants to address issues related to the overcrowding of the Bernalillo County jail system, consisting originally of the Bernalillo County Detention Center ("BCDC") in downtown Albuquerque, New Mexico and later on, the newer Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC"), now operated by the County. In addition to addressing the needs of the Plaintiff class, the Court certified a "sub-class of all persons with mental and/or developmental disabilities who are now, or in the future may be, detained at BCDC. The parties seek final approval of their Settlement Agreement that fully resolves a dispute over the treatment of class and subclass members by the Albuquerque Police Department ("APD"). On Aug. 2, 2016, the Plaintiff Intervenors, on behalf of the subclass of individuals with mental disabilities, asked the Court to issue an order requiring the City Defendants to show cause why they are not in violation of a 2001 consent decree entered in this case. They also alleged that the City Defendants have allowed the APD to violate subclass members' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). On Aug. 3, 2016, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class of inmates housed at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC"), filed a notice of joinder in the Motion for Order to Show Cause. On Nov. 9, 2016, after full briefing of the Motion for Order to Show Cause, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order requiring the City Defendants to appear and show cause as to whether they are in compliance with: (i) the Supplemental Order to enforce previously ordered population limits at the BCDC Main facility ("2001 Supplemental Order") requiring the City Defendants to provide direction to law enforcement officials to issue citations where appropriate and to use the 'walk through procedures,' rather than incarcerating individuals, where appropriate; (ii) the 2001 Supplemental Order requiring the City to schedule a meeting or meetings concerning the provision of mental health services in Bernalillo County to plan how to implement an effective jail diversion program for persons with psychiatric and developmental disabilities; and (iii) the ADA with regard to detaining and arresting individuals with mental illnesses or developmental disabilities to sweep them from the streets. The Court ordered the parties to participate in limited discovery. After discovery was completed, the parties entered into settlement discussions with Special Master Alan C. Torgerson. The Settlement Agreement is the product of those discussions and the determined efforts of Special Master Torgerson. On July 10, 2017, the Court granted preliminary approval of Settlement Agreement. On Sept. 11, 2017, the Court held a hearing on final approval of the Settlement Agreement. At the end of the hearing, the Court signed the Settlement Agreement and asked Ms. Moulton to notify the Court when the City Council had approved the Settlement Agreement so that the Court could find that the Motion for Order to Show Cause had been finally resolved. In a letter dated Oct. 4, 2017, Ms. Moulton advised the Court that the parties agreed that the Court's execution and filing of the Settlement Agreement was sufficient to fully resolve the Motion for Order to Show Cause. Ms. Moulton then informed the Court that the City ordinances do not require approval of the Settlement Agreement by the City Council and that Ms. Moulton received all necessary approval prior to executing the Settlement Agreement on behalf of the City. After considering the long history of the case, the Settlement Agreement, the objections, and the arguments of counsel for the class, subclass, the City Defendants, and the County Defendants, Judge Parker granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, within 45 days of the signing of the Settlement Agreement, the City must (i) issue a Special Order and a member of the command staff must issue a corresponding video and (ii) initiate revision to APD's Standard Operating Procedure ("SOP") 2-80, entitled Arrests, Arrest Warrants and Booking Procedure. After final approval of the revised SOPs, the City will ensure that all officers are adequately trained on the revised SOPs. APD must develop a training plan on the revisions within 60 days of the final approval of those SOPs by the Chief of APD. The Counsel for the class and subclass will be given an opportunity to review the training materials and give comments and recommendations within two weeks of receipt. The Chief of APD, however, will make the final determination on training materials and methods. The City must also revise SOP 2-19 entitled "Response to Behavioral Health Issues." It must also create a system of business records documenting the following: (i) the notation of phone numbers and email addresses on the new Uniform Traffic Citation form; (ii) bookings into MDC on citable non-violent misdemeanor offenses other than driving while intoxicated offenses; (iii) disposition data for individuals involved in incidents to which the CIT responded; and (iv) arrests involving domestic violence calls. Beginning 30 days after the Settlement Agreement is signed, the City Defendants must compile these records for one year. Within three months thereafter, the City Defendants must publically issue a written report summarizing the findings from these statistical records and any follow-up measures taken. Issuance of the report constitutes compliance with this section. The City Defendants must continue to collaborate in good faith with the County Defendants to develop and allocate resources to jail diversion programs. They may continue to use third-party behavioral health programs for individuals in behavioral health crisis, and the City Defendants must utilize other appropriate third-party providers as they become available in the community. The City must continue to provide approximately 700 supportive housing slots for people, including the mentally disabled, who have been booked into the MDC. If a dispute arises over compliance with the Settlement Agreement, before filing a motion with the Court, the parties must first attempt to mediate the dispute before Special Master Torgerson or another agreed-upon mediator. The City Defendants may file a motion with the Court for a finding of substantial compliance with the Settlement Agreement and upon a showing of substantial compliance, the City Defendants may ask the Court to dismiss them from the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/p5MAQN from Leagle.com. Peter Sumatkaku, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss, Garcia Ives Nowara. Peter Sumatkaku, Plaintiff, represented by Mark T. Baker -- mbaker@peiferlaw.com -- Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara -- molly@ginlawfirm.com -- GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienve, Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A. Ives -- zach@ginlawfirm.com -- GARCIA IVES NOWARA. Marc A. Gillette, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss, Garcia Ives Nowara, Mark T. Baker, Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara, GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein Donatelli LLP, Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A. Ives, GARCIA IVES NOWARA. George Chavez, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss, Garcia Ives Nowara, Mark T. Baker, Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara, GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein Donatelli LLP, Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A. Ives, GARCIA IVES NOWARA. Eliseo Baca, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss, Garcia Ives Nowara, Mark T. Baker, Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara, GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein Donatelli LLP, Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A. Ives, GARCIA IVES NOWARA. Clint Barras, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss, Garcia Ives Nowara, Mark T. Baker, Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara, GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein Donatelli LLP, Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A. Ives, GARCIA IVES NOWARA. Francisco Melendez, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss, Garcia Ives Nowara, Mark T. Baker, Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara, GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein Donatelli LLP, Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A. Ives, GARCIA IVES NOWARA. Samual Herrod, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss, Garcia Ives Nowara, Mark T. Baker, Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara, GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein Donatelli LLP, Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A. Ives, GARCIA IVES NOWARA. Vincent Padilla, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss, Garcia Ives Nowara, Mark T. Baker, Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara, GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein Donatelli LLP, Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A. Ives, GARCIA IVES NOWARA. Carl Duckworth, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss, Garcia Ives Nowara, Mark T. Baker, Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara, GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein Donatelli LLP, Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A. Ives, GARCIA IVES NOWARA. Albuquerque, City of, Defendant, represented by Debra J. Moulton, Kennedy, Moulton & Wells PC & Kathryn Levy, City of Albuquerque Legal Department. Martin Chavez, Defendant, represented by Kathryn Levy. Bernalillo, County of, Defendant, represented by Marcus J. Rael, Jr. -- marcus@roblesrael.com -- Robles, Rael & Anaya, PC. Alan C. Torgerson, Miscellaneous, represented by Alan C. Torgerson. AFSCME Local 2499, Intervenor, represented by Shane C. Youtz, Youtz & Valdez PC & Stephen Curtice, Youtz & Valdez, PC. Michael Sisneros, Defendant, Pro se. Bernalillo County Board of Commissioners, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey L. Baker, The Baker Law Firm, Luis E. Robles -- luis@roblesrael.com -- Robles, Rael & Anaya, P.C. & Marcus J. Rael, Jr. Robles, Rael & Anaya, PC. ALLIED COLLECTION: "Simmons" Disputes Deceptive Collection Letter ----------------------------------------------------------------- Katanya Simmons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allied Collection Services, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-07865 (D. N.J., October 4, 2017), seeks statutory and actual damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff owed an obligation that was allegedly incurred to Sprint. The latter allegedly contracted Allied to collect the alleged debt via a collection letter that contained an offer to settle the debt that was set to expire within seven days, a form of a firm expiring offer rendering the letter deceptive and overshadowing as it does not truly afford the consumer their proper rights and ability to dispute since the least sophisticated consumer could believe a settlement offer on par with the current one may never arise again, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. RC LAW GROUP, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 ANTARES PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Antares Pharma, Inc. ("Antares" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:ATRS) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of New Jersey, and docketed under 17-cv-08945, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Antares securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Antares securities between December 21, 2016, and October 12, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until December 22, 2017, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Antares develops pharmaceutical delivery systems, including needle-free and mini-needle injector systems and transdermal gel technologies. The Company distributes its needle-free injector systems in various countries. Antares also conducts research and development with transdermal gel products and has several products in clinical evaluation with partners. Antares's product Xyosted (originally known as QuickShot Testosterone or QST) has been among the Company's lead product candidates at all relevant times. Antares announced its submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA") for Xyosted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") on December 21, 2016. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Antares had provided insufficient data to the FDA in connection with its NDA for Xyosted; (ii) accordingly, Antares had overstated the approval prospects for Xyosted; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Antares' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 12, 2017, post-market, Antares disclosed that on October 11, 2017, the Company received a letter from the FDA stating that the agency had "identified deficiencies that preclude the continuation of the discussion of labeling and post marketing requirements/commitments" for Xyosted. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.41, or 37.80%, to close at $2.32 on October 13, 2017. On October 20, 2017, post-market, Antares announced receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding the NDA for Xyosted, "indicat[ing] that the FDA cannot approve the NDA in its present form." The Company stated, in part that "the FDA is concerned that XYOSTED could cause a clinically meaningful increase in blood pressure" and also "raised a concern regarding the occurrence of depression and suicidality." With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] ANTHELIO HEALTHCARE: Faces "Hoskins" Suit in Cal. Super Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anthelio Healthcare Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Katie Hoskins, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Anthelio Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc. and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2017- 00220914-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., October 19, 2017). Anthelio Healthcare Solutions Inc. provides healthcare technology services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. Lawyers for Justice, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Tel: (818) 265-1020 Fax: (818) 265-1021 ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE: "Hendrix" Suit Removed to E.D. Ark. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Ricky Hendrix, individually and on behalf of a class of all Arkansans similarly situated, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Arkansas Municipal League (d/b/a Municipal Health Benefit Fund), and Municipal Health Benefit Fund, Defendants, Case No. 58CV-17-499 (Ark. Cir., September 7, 2017), was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on October 11, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-00652. Hendrix asserts breach of contract and seeks a declaratory judgment. Municipal Health Benefit Fund provides medical, dental and vision benefits to employees and officials.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Streett, Esq. Alex G. Streett, Esq. STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 West Main Russellville, AR 72801 Tel: (479) 968-2030 - and - Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 227 2nd Avenue North, 4th Floor Nashville, TN 37201 jleniski@bransetterlaw.com Defendants are represented by: Christian C. Michaels, Esq. H. Bradley Walker, Esq. CATLETT LAW FIRM, PLC 323 Center Street, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Tel: (501) 372-2121 Email: cmichaels@catlaw.com bwalker@catlaw.com BEACH LANE: Rent-Regulated Tenants File Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Ivan Pereira, writing for AM New York, reports that a class-action lawsuit filed on Oct. 23 on behalf of tenants of a Washington Heights building contends their landlord breached rent regulations it was required to abide by while receiving a state tax benefit. Housing Rights Initiative, a nonprofit assisting the tenants, claims Beach Lane Management convinced residents of 651 W. 171st St. to sign away their right to regulated rent increases, which Beach Lane Management needed to follow while participating in the state's J-51 tax program. Gov. Andrew Cuomo launched the J-51 program in 2016 as part of an attempt to convince landlords to place some 50,000 homes back in the rent stabilization program they were illegally taken out of. Landlords that began abiding by the required rent regulations were given a tax benefit, which currently costs the city $250 million annually, according to the Housing Rights Initiative. The complaint claims West 171 Associates, a subsidiary of Beach Lane Management, used rent discounts to convince at least two residents to sign paperwork waiving their right to the rent stabilization protections. West 171 Associates then allegedly hiked rents beyond what was permitted under the J-51 program, and justified the increases by saying the firm would make apartment improvements. But the work done amounted to routine maintenance tasks and painting, according to the lawsuit. "If the discounted rent is based on a fraudulent rent spike, it's no longer a discount, it's an overcharge hiding behind a larger overcharge," Aaron Carr, the executive director of Housing Rights Initiative, said in a statement. Beach Lane Management, which owns 100 city properties, did not return requests for comment. Beyond seeking to recoup what they allegedly overpaid in rent, the plaintiffs are requesting an independent audit of Beach Lane Management's accounting. [GN] BJ INSPECTIONS: "Russo" Suit Transferred From Louisiana to Ohio --------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action lawsuit titled FRANK RUSSO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BJ INSPECTIONS, INC., Case No. 6:17-cv-00959, was transferred on October 2, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Akron). The Ohio District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv- 02055-JRA to the proceeding. Frank Russo brings the lawsuit to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. BJ Inspections is an oilfield service company offering inspection and managerial services to the oil and natural gas industry throughout the United States, including in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. Matthew Scott Parmet, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com mparmet@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Telecopier: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN 417 W. University Ave. P.O. Box 4325 Lafayette, LA 70502 Telephone: (337) 235-5294 Telecopier: (337) 235-1095 E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com Defendant BJ Inspections Inc. is represented by: Charles C. Garrison, Esq. CAFFERY, OUBRE, CAMPBELL & GARRISON, L.L.P. P O Drawer 12410 New Iberia, LA 70562-2410 Telephone: (337) 364-1816 Facsimile: (337) 364-9822 E-mail: cgarrison@cocglaw.com - and - Kenneth J. Hardin, II, Esq. HARDIN THOMPSON PC 437 Grant Street, Suite 620 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 315-7195 Facsimile: (412) 315-7386 E-mail: kenhardin@hardinlawpc.net BOWLERLAND BILDINIC: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bowlerland Bildinic Lanes Corp. The case is styled as Richard Baldelli and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bowlerland Bildinic Lanes Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08049 (S.D. N.Y., October 19, 2017). Bowlerland Bildinic Lanes Corp. is engaged in the entertainment business.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. BRAZTECH INT'L: Bedwell's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaim Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Edwin G. Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the Defendant's counterclaim in the case captioned SUZANNE M. BEDWELL, individually and as mother and next friend of R.Z.B., a minor and ERNEST D. BEDWELL, individually and as father and next friend of R.Z.B., a minor, Plaintiffs, v. BRAZTECH INTERNATIONAL, L.C., Defendant, Case No. 17-22335-Civ-TORRES (S.D. Fla.). The Plaintiff filed the action on Sept. 16, 2016. On Jan. 20, 2015, Ms. Bedwell purchased a new Rossi brand .357 Magnum revolver at an outdoor equipment retailer in Wasilla, Alaska. On Feb. 21, 2015, Ms. Bedwell, along with her husband and son, drove to an ammunition store to purchase supplies before driving to Palmer, Alaska to engage in target practice. In the process of exiting the motor vehicle in the parking lot, the revolver inadvertently fell out of its holster, landed on its hammer, and unintentionally discharged a round of ammunition that struck Ms. Bedwell's son in his left leg. Ms. Bedwell suggests that the accidental discharge of the firearm was directly and proximately caused by the firearm's defective condition, including manufacturing and/or design defects. As a result of the injury to Ms. Bedwell's son, Alaska state troopers were called to the scene. After hearing Ms. Bedwell's explanation for the cause of the accident, the officers took the firearm into their possession. On April 14, 2015, the state troopers tested Ms. Bedwell's firearm for a potential misfiring defect by tapping the revolver on the hammer with a small mallet. The test allegedly resulted in an unintentional misfiring of the weapon. The Plaintiff then purchased three additional Rossi .357 revolvers and a local gunsmith tested them for defects. Out of the three, one discharged in the same way as Ms. Bedwell's revolver when struck on the hammer with a mallet. As such, Ms. Bedwell filed the class action seeking to force the Defendants to recall, repair, and/or repurchase the defective .357 revolvers sold to Ms. Bedwell and the class. In sum, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, committed two counts of negligence (failure to warn and failure to test), and breached several warranties. Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the Defendant counterclaim. the Defendant responded to the Plaintiff's motion on Oct. 9, 2017 to which the Plaintiffs did not reply. The Defendant's counterclaim alleges that contributory fault applies in the case -- because both Plaintiffs were allegedly negligent in the supervision of their minor son. In its answer, Defendant included apportionment of fault as a counterclaim which therefore led the Plaintiffs to filing a motion to dismiss. However, apportionment of fault is not a counterclaim but an affirmative defense. Judge Torres finds that the Defendant has proffered enough facts to give the Plaintiffs fair notice of the affirmative defense being asserted and how it applies to the facts of this case. Specifically, the Defendant suggests that the Plaintiffs (i) allowed the firearm to slide out of its holster, (ii) strike the ground, and (iii) discharge in an unintended manner. The Defendant also contends that the Plaintiffs failed to supervise their minor son when the firearm was dropped to the ground. When coupled together, it becomes clear that the Defendant's theory for contributory fault hinges upon the Plaintiffs committing several negligent acts -- all of which caused injuries to the Plaintiffs' son. The Judge concludes the Defendant is required to do no more. Accordingly, he denied the Plaintiffs' motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/51oIxL from Leagle.com. Suzanne M. Bedwell, Plaintiff, represented by Brian William Warwick -- bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell & Warwick, P.A.. Suzanne M. Bedwell, Plaintiff, represented by Christian Bataille, Flanigan & Bataille, pro hac vice & Richard Blackburn Adams, Jr., Cole Scott & Kissane. Ernest D. Bedwell, Plaintiff, represented by Brian William Warwick, Varnell & Warwick, P.A., Christian Bataille, Flanigan & Bataille, pro hac vice & Richard Blackburn Adams, Jr., Cole Scott & Kissane. Braztech International LC, Defendant, represented by John B. Thorsness, Clapp, Peterson, Tiemessen, Thorsness & Johnson, LLC, John P. Marino -- jmarino@sgrlaw.com -- Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, John F. Weeks -- jweeks@sgrlaw.com -- IV, Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP & Kristen W. Bracken -- kbracken@sgrlaw.com -- Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP. Braztech International, L.C., Counter Claimant, represented by John B. Thorsness, Clapp Peterson Tiemessen Thorsness & Johnson, John Patrick Marino, Smith Gambrell Russell, John F. Weeks, IV, Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP & Kristen Wenger Bracken, Smith Gambrell & Russell, L.L.P.. Ernest D. Bedwell, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian William Warwick, Varnell & Warwick, P.A., Christian Bataille, Flanigan & Bataille & Richard Blackburn Adams, Jr., Cole Scott & Kissane. Suzanne M. Bedwell, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian William Warwick, Varnell & Warwick, P.A., Christian Bataille, Flanigan & Bataille & Richard Blackburn Adams, Jr., Cole Scott & Kissane. BRETON INTERNATIONAL: "Delacruz" Suit Alleges ADA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Emanuel Delacruz, and all others similarly-situated v. Breton International, Inc. dba Apex Technical School, Case No. 1:17-cv- 07918 (S.D. N.Y., October 15, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Plaintiff brings the civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Plaintiff Emanuel Delacruz is a resident of New York, New York. Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. Defendant operates Apex Technical School as well as the Apex website (www.apexschool.com) and advertises, markets, distributes, and provides courses of learning in the State of New York and throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 879-0240 Fax: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com nyjg@aol.com BURGER KING: Faces "Tarr" Class Suit Over FACTA Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Andrew D. Tarr, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated individuals v. Burger King Corporation, d/b/a Burger King, Case No. 1:17-cv-23776-FAM (S.D. Fla., October 13, 2017), arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, specifically by providing electronically printed receipt bearing the first 6, along with the last 4 digits of consumers' debit card account number. Burger King Corporation is one of the largest fast food restaurant chains in the world, operating more than 7,000 stores in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com - and - Bret L. Lusskin, Jr., Esq. BRET LUSSKIN, P.A. 20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 302 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 454-5841 Facsimile: (954) 454-5844 E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com - and - Keith J. Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 Facsimile: (312)726-1093 E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com CENTURYLINK GROUP: "Chavez" Suit Removed to D. Minn. ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Anthony Chavez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Centurylink, Inc., (d/b/a Centurylink Broadband), Centurylink Communications, LLC and Centurylink, Public Communications, Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01561, (D. Colo., June 26, 2017), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on October 11, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-04615. Plaintiff is a CenturyLink customer for their internet service. Plaintiff claims to be unjustly charged for services it they did not avail of and/or did not agree to. CenturyLink is a global communications and IT services company focused on network and data systems management, big data analytics, managed security services, hosting, cloud and IT consulting services. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq. Mark J. Geragos, Esq. GERAGOS & GERAGOS 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (213) 625-3900 Email: geragos@geragos.com geragos@geragos.com - and - James S. Notis, Esq. Mark C. Gardy, Esq. Orin Kurtz, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP Tower 56, 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 905-0509 Fax: (212) 905-0508 Email: mgardy@gardylaw.com jnotis@gardylaw.com okurtz@gardylaw.com - and - Kip B. Shuman, Esq. THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM Post-Montgomery Ctr. One Montgomery Street, Ste. 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (303) 861-3003 Fax: (303) 536-7849 Email: kip@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Rusty Evan Glenn, Esq. SHUMAN LAW FIRM-DENVER 600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South Denver, CO 80202 Tel: (303) 861-3003 Fax: (303) 536-7849 Email: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com The CenturyLink Group is represented by: David Anthony Vogel, Esq. Douglas P. Lobel, Esq. COOLEY LLP 11951 Freedom Drive, Ste. 1500 One Freedom Square, Reston Town Center Reston, VA 20190-5656 Tel: (703) 456-8000 Fax: (703) 456-8100 Email: dvogel@cooley.com dlobel@cooley.com - and - James Patrick Brogan, Esq. Cooley LLP 380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900 Broomfield, CO 80021-8023 Tel: (720) 566-4190 Fax: (720) 566-4099 Email: jbrogan@cooley.com CENTURYLINK INC: "Gonsior" Suit Removed to D. Minn. --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Heather Gonsior, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Centurylink, Inc., inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00963, (D. Or., June 19, 2017), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on October 11, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-04619. Plaintiff is a CenturyLink customer for their internet service. Plaintiff claims to be unjustly charged for services that it did not avail of and/or did not agree to. CenturyLink is a global communications and IT services company focused on network and data systems management, big data analytics, managed security services, hosting, cloud and IT consulting services. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Fuller, Esq. OLSEN DAINES PC US Bancorp Tower 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150 Portland, OR 97204 Tel: (503) 201-4570 Fax: (503) 362-1375 Michael@UnderdogLawyer.com CenturyLink, Inc. is represented by: Douglas P. Lobel, Esq. COOLEY LLP 11951 Freedom Drive, Ste. 1500 One Freedom Square, Reston Town Center Reston, VA 20190-5656 Tel: (703) 456-8000 Fax: (703) 456-8100 Email: dlobel@cooley.com - and - Edward Choi, Esq. Sarah J. Crooks, Esq. PERKINS COIE, LLP 1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 Tel: (503) 727-2053, 727-2000 Fax: (503) 727-2222 Email: scrooks@perkinscoie.com CEVA LOGISTICS: "Garcia" Class Settlement Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned Diego Garcia, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CEVA Logistics USA, et al. Defendants, Case No. EDCV 16-388 JGB (DTBx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement pursuant to the Order filed on Oct. 23, 2017, and dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Judgment is available at https://is.gd/4ILg2U from Leagle.com. Diego Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C. Westrick -- swestrick@westricklawfirm.com -- The Westrick Law Firm. Vincent Arevalo, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C. Westrick, The Westrick Law Firm. Efren Renteria, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C. Westrick, The Westrick Law Firm. CEVA Logistics USA, Defendant, represented by David R. Ongaro -- dongaro@ongaropc.com -- Ongaro PC, Douglas G.A. Johnston, Jackson Lewis PC, Nicole Elizabeth Forde -- Nicole.Forde@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Fraser Angus McAlpine -- Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC. Centerline Drivers, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amelia D. Winchester -- awinchester@ongaropc.com -- Ongaro PC & David R. Ongaro, Ongaro PC. CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Lutz" -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sara Lioi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted Defendant Chesapeake Appalachia's renewed motion for partial summary judgment in the case captioned REGIS F. LUTZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:09-cv-2256 (N.D. Ohio). On Sept. 30, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed their putative class action complaint against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs are lessors of interests in natural gas estates in tracts of land in Trumbull and Mahoning Counties in Ohio. They claim that their leases provide that the Defendant will pay them a royalty equal to 1/8th the value of the gas produced each month, computed by multiplying the volumes produced by the market price of gas at the time of production and dividing the product by eight. The Plaintiffs alleged that beginning in at least 1993, the Defendant began to deliberately and fraudulently underpay the full gas royalty due its natural gas lessors, by (i) deducting post production costs from the royalty payments the 'improper deductions' claim]; (ii) calculating the monthly royalty payments using a price that was less than the market price of the gas at the time of production the 'Mahonia contracts' claim; and (iii) calculating the monthly royalty payments using volumes that were less than the volumes actually produced the 'line loss' claim. They further allege that, although the gas wells at issue produced oil in addition to gas, no oil royalties were ever paid. The Court dismissed the entire complaint, on the Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the contract claim time-barred under the four-year statute of limitations in Ohio Rev. Code Section 2305.041, and finding no independent basis for the remaining tort claims. The Plaintiffs appealed and the Sixth Circuit determined that the breach of contract claim in Count I of the complaint should survive a motion to dismiss because each monthly royalty underpayment would constitute a separate breach triggering a new accrual period, a question never decided by any Ohio court and the answer to which was gleaned by the Sixth Circuit from existing Ohio precedent. Thus, the court of appeals held that the Plaintiffs are permitted to pursue their breach of contract claim pertaining to any underpayments of royalties that occurred within the four years prior to the filing of their complaint in September 2009. The court further held that they may be entitled to equitable tolling on the basis of fraudulent concealment, but that these are questions for summary judgment or for trial. The court affirmed this Court's ruling in all other respects and remanded for further proceedings. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the Court took under advisement, ultimately concluding, after consultation with counsel, that the following question should be certified to the Supreme Court of Ohio: (i) whether Ohio follows the at the well rule (which permits the deduction of postproduction costs) or it follows some version of the marketable product rule (which limits the deduction of post-production costs under certain circumstances). The Court stayed all proceedings until the Ohio Supreme Court determined whether to accept the certified question. On July 13, 2015, in view of the Ohio Supreme Court's acceptance of the certified question, the case was administratively closed, subject to reopening. The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral argument on Jan. 5, 2016 and the case was submitted that day. On Nov. 14, 2016, the Defendant advised the Court that a majority of the Ohio Supreme Court had ruled on Nov. 2, 2016 that under Ohio law, an oil and gas lease is a contract that is subject to the traditional rules of contract construction. Because the rights and remedies of the parties are controlled by the specific language of their lease agreement, Ohio Supreme Court declines to answer the certified question and dismiss this cause. On Aug. 18, 2017, Chesapeake filed the instant renewed motion for partial summary judgment, again seeking summary judgment solely with respect to the "at the well" leases. The Plaintiffs have not filed a renewed dispositive motion, although they have opposed Chesapeake's renewed motion. Chesapeake seeks partial summary judgment on the following issues: (i) on its counterclaim seeking a declaration that, to the extent the Plaintiffs have leases with royalty clauses valuing the royalty payment "at the well," royalties under such leases must be paid based on the value of gas "at the well," and not at any other location; (ii) on its counterclaim seeking a declaration that it has complied with the Plaintiffs' "at the well" leases by paying a royalty based on the market value of gas at the wellhead; (iii) on the Plaintiffs' "line loss" claim with respect to all of their leases; and (iv) on the Plaintiffs' claim that the statute of limitations was equitably tolled due to fraudulent concealment. A close reading of the royalty provision, in light of Ohio's contract law, leads to the conclusion that the parties' intent was that the location for valuing the gas for purposes of computing the royalty was "at the well." Judge Lioi concludes that Ohio would apply the "at the well" rule. Therefore, she granted the Defendant's motion is granted with respect to the legal question raised in its first two grounds for summary judgment. She also granted the motion with respect to the Plaintiffs' claim relating to payment of royalties on full volume. The Plaintiffs have provided no evidence to support the allegations of line loss in their complaint. They have made no effort to refute the Defendant's legal arguments, which she finds persuasive. Even more importantly, now that she has determined that royalties are computed based on volume "at the well," not elsewhere, loss somewhere along the line is not relevant. The Judge finds the Defendant is also entitled to summary judgment on the claim of fraudulent concealment. The Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment entitles them to tolling of the four-year statute of limitations. For the reasons stated, Judge Lioi granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. In view of this ruling, the Judge directed the counsel to confer and to propose in writing by Nov. 8, 2017, their joint suggestions as to how to proceed with the case, including re-briefing on the question of class certification; whether any additional discovery is required; whether another round of summary judgment motions would be helpful and/or warranted; whether there is any interest in attempting to resolve the case and, if so, by what means; and any other matter counsel would like to bring to the Court's attention. The Court will then conduct a telephone conference, with counsel only, on Nov. 14, 2017 at 12:30 p.m. The Plaintiffs' counsel will be responsible for placing the call to the Court's chambers after all the counsel are on the line. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/wFWz6u from Leagle.com. Regis F. Lutz, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C. Sanders -- rcsanders@rcsanderslaw.com. Regis F. Lutz, Plaintiff, represented by James Allison Lowe -- jlowe@lewlaw.com -- Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield. Marion L. Lutz, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C. Sanders & James Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield. Leonard W. Yochman, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C. Sanders & James Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield. Joseph L. Yochman, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C. Sanders & James Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield. C.Y.V. LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C. Sanders & James Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alexandra I. Russell -- alexandra.russell@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, Nicolle R. Snyder Bagnell -- nbagnell@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, Daniel T. Donovan -- daniel.donovan@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, Jonathan T. Blank -- jblank@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods, Kevin C. Abbott -- kabbott@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, Leonard J. Marsico -- lmarsico@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods, Ragan Naresh -- ragan.naresh@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis & Yvette G. Harmon -- yharmon@mcguirewoodsemeritus.com -- INVALID ADDRESS - McGuire Woods. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Counter-Claimant, represented by Alexandra I. Russell, Kirkland & Ellis, Nicolle R. Snyder Bagnell, Reed Smith, Daniel T. Donovan, Kirkland & Ellis, Jonathan T. Blank, McGuire Woods, Kevin C. Abbott, Reed Smith, Leonard J. Marsico, McGuire Woods, Ragan Naresh, Kirkland & Ellis & Yvette G. Harmon, INVALID ADDRESS - McGuire Woods. C.Y.V. LLC, Counter-Defendant, represented by Robert C. Sanders & James Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield. Marion L. Lutz, Counter-Defendant, represented by Robert C. Sanders & James Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield. Regis F. Lutz, Counter-Defendant, represented by Robert C. Sanders & James Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield. Joseph L. Yochman, Counter-Defendant, represented by Robert C. Sanders & James Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield. Leonard W. Yochman, Counter-Defendant, represented by Robert C. Sanders & James Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield. CHILDRENS' PLACE: Judge Stays PMWA Overtime Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- P.J. Dannunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that declining to dismiss a prospective wage class action against clothing retailer The Childrens' Place, a federal judge has instead stayed the litigation. The plaintiffs are store managers at The Childrens' Place stores and allege that they were not paid overtime and misclassified as exempt from the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The plaintiffs made identical claims in an underlying FLSA suit. The defendant argued the case should be dismissed on the basis of claim splitting. "The doctrine of claim splitting is intended to prevent a defendant from having to deal with piecemeal litigation of the same issues," U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said in her opinion. "Staying the case will prevent The Children's Place from having to spend resources on duplicative litigation, but will also preserve the Plaintiffs' claims in the event" the plaintiffs' claims there rare dismissed. [GN] COMMUNICATIONS TEST: Accused by "Marshall" Suit of Violating FCRA ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEREK MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMUNICATIONS TEST DESIGN, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-04383-MMB (E.D. Pa., October 2, 2017), accuses the Defendant of willfully violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by: (1) failing to provide a standalone up-front notice that the Defendant may procure consumer reports about its applicants and employees; and (2) failing to provide its applicants and employees copies of such reports and the required summaries of their FCRA rights before taking adverse action against them. Communications Test Design, Inc., is a corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business located in West Chester, Pennsylvania. CTDI is a global engineering, repair, and logistics. CTDI was founded in 1975 and now has over 14,000 employees in over 90 facilities worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barry L. Cohen, Esq. Sean S. Litz, Esq. ROYER COOPER COHEN BRAUNFELD LLC 101 West Elm Street, Suite 220 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (484) 362-2628 Facsimile: (484) 362-2630 E-mail: bcohen@rccblaw.com slitz@rccblaw.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0676 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com DIANA CONTAINERSHIPS: Robins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Diana Containerships Inc. ("Diana") (NASDAQ:DCIX) common stock during the period between January 26, 2017 and October 3, 2017 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Eastern District of New York and is captioned Robinson v. Diana Containerships Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-6160. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from October 23, 2017. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/diana/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Diana, certain of the Company's officers and/or directors and Kalani Investments Limited and certain of its affiliates ("Kalani") with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Diana is a global provider of shipping transportation services through its ownership of containerships. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendant Symeon P. Palios ("Palios"), the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, caused Diana to engage in a series of manipulative share issuance/sales transactions with Kalani and related entities. The manipulative scheme worked as follows: Through his control of Diana, Palios caused Diana to sell its common shares and securities convertible into common shares to Kalani at a significant discount to market price and to file registration statements so that Kalani could resell these shares into the market. When Kalani's sales of Diana stock caused the price of Diana stock to decline, the Company would reverse split the stock, causing a certain number of outstanding shares to be merged into a single share, thereby raising the price of Diana stock. Then Diana would again sell securities to Kalani and the same pattern of transactions would ensue. According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose the true purpose of these transactions and the related stock issuances and reverses -- to provide Diana with financing that benefited Palios and his related companies and family members and otherwise funnel money to Company insiders. As a result of defendants' stock manipulation scheme, the complaint alleges that by October 3, 2017, Diana common stock, which traded at a price of more than $2,500 per share on an adjusted basis during the early part of the Class Period, was worth only $0.47 per share. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Diana common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a law firm advising and representing U.S. and international investors in securities litigation and portfolio monitoring. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. [GN] DRYCARE RESTORATION: "Abante Rooter" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc., and all others similarly-situated v. Drycare Restoration, Inc. dba Flood Local and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 3:17-cv-05884 (N.D. Calif., October 13, 2017), seeks damages and other available legal or equitable remedies for Defendants' violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc. is a rooting and plumbing business in Emeryville, California. Defendant Drycare Restoration, Inc. dba Flood Local is a restoration and damage servicer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com E.I. DUPONT: James Scott Farrin Files GenX Chemical Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- DuPont and others have been accused of allegedly releasing chemicals known to be harmful to the public into the Cape Fear River, which provides drinking water to thousands of people served by the Brunswick County Northwest Water Treatment Plant, according to a class action lawsuit filed on Oct. 20. The particulars of the lawsuit are as follows: What: Class Action and Individual Complaint and Request for Jury Trial http://file://mediaserver/users/Debbie1028/WINDOWS/Approval/Press% 20Releases/October/GenX%202%20oct%2020/Complaint-FILED.PDF Where: Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division / Case # 7:17-CV-00197-FL When: Oct. 20 Who: -- Plaintiff -- Roger Morton, individually and as representative of the members of the classes -- Represented by the Law Offices of James Scott Farrin (Durham) and The Hannon Law Firm (Denver) -- Defendants -- The Chemours Company FC, LLC, The Chemours Company, E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Inc., E.I. duPont Chemical Corporation, Ellis H. McGaughy, and Michael E. Johnson Summary Plaintiff, individually and as a representative of the members of a class (amounting potentially to more than 30,000 people), seeks compensatory and punitive damages arising out of alleged releases, discharges, spills and leaks of toxic PFAS and PFECAs, both past and present, from the Fayetteville Works Facility and property currently owned by the Chemours Defendants in Fayetteville, NC. Requests for alleged damages include: -- loss in value and marketability of properties -- cost of remediating properties -- cost of mitigating the contaminated water, and/or cost of alternative water sources -- loss of use of their properties they own, loss of use and enjoyment of those properties, annoyance, discomfort and inconvenience -- cost of diagnostic testing for the early detection of illness, disease, and disease process caused by exposure to Defendants' toxic PFAS and/or PFECAs Claims for relief (i.e. alleged ways in which defendants may have broken the law): -- Trespass -- Nuisance -- Negligence -- Negligent failure to warn -- Unjust enrichment Contact Information: David Chamberlin 280 S. Mangum Street, Suite 400 Durham, NC 27701 866-900-7078 http://www.farrin.com [GN] EQUIFAX INC: Small Businesses Seek Damages Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Kademi, LLC, Superior Services, Investment Group, LLC, Forest Express Properties, LLC, Just Rev, LLC, Pierce N Tell of Sarasota, LLC, Martin's Auto Repair, Mojo Mama's LLC, Young's Distributing Co., Inc., Coastal Communications, LLC, The Mello Group, Inc., Dawn Lea Chalmers, Richard Alexander, Kbar Ali, Poonam Ali, Reevney St. Luc, Oshik Perez, Teresa Sue Martin, William Marvin Martin, Jr., Ngela M. Krout, Bridgette Young, Jeff Newkirk, Chris Williams, individually and on behalf of others, similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv- 03886, (N.D. Ga., October 4, 2017), seeks appropriate injunctive relief designed to ensure against the recurrence of a data breach by adopting and implementing the best security data practices to safeguard customers' financial and personal information and that would include, without limitation, an order and judgment directing Equifax to encrypt and protect all data and directing Equifax to provide to Plaintiffs and Class members extended credit monitoring services, pre judgment and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and such other and further relief resulting from negligence and under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and various consumer protections statutes and data protection laws. 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. Plaintiffs represent a class of small business owners and consumers who blame Equifax for failure to safeguard personally identifiable information during the data breach. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Doss, Esq. Samuel T. Brannan, Esq. THE DOSS FIRM, LLC 36 Trammell Street, Suite 101 Marietta, GA 30064 Tel: (770) 578-1314 Fax: (770) 578-1302 Email: jasondoss@dossfirm.com EQUIFAX INC: Pellitteri Files Suit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- Carmen Pellitteri and Kent Toft, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03881 (N.D. Ga., October 5, 2017), seeks appropriate injunctive relief designed to ensure against the recurrence of a data breach by adopting and implementing the best security data practices to safeguard customers' financial and personal information and that would include, without limitation, an order and judgment directing Equifax to encrypt and protect all data and directing Equifax to provide to Plaintiffs and Class members extended credit monitoring services. The lawsuit further seeks pre judgment and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and such other and further relief resulting from negligence and under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and various consumer protection statutes and data protection laws. 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. Plaintiffs' personal and confidential information, was included in the massive data breach of Defendant's systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Bain, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC 1230 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 1050 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 724-9990 Facsimile: (404) 724-9986 Email: dbain@bain-law.com - and - Mark Reinhardt, Esq. Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD E-1250 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Email: m.reinhardt@rwblawfirm.com g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com EQUIFAX INC: "Turner" Seeks Damages Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- Nathan Turner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Case No. 17-CV-2041 (S.D. Cal., October 4, 2017), seeks redress for negligence, unjust enrichment and violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code and Unfair Competition Law. Equifax, one of the three major consumer credit reporting agencies, was hacked and the consumers' data it held was stolen. Equifax waited more than a month to advise affected users, including the Plaintiff, that their private, personal information had been compromised. Data included names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license numbers and credit card numbers, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander M. Schack, Esq. Natasha N. Serino, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK 16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Tel: (858) 485-6535 Fax: (858) 485-0608 Email: alexschack@amslawoffice.com natashaserino@amslawoffice.com EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Henderson" Suit Arising From Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ SHON HENDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EQUIFAX, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-03829-LMM (N.D. Ga., September 29, 2017), arises from a data breach that allowed third parties to access the names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and other personally identifiable information of over 140 million United States consumers. The data breach purportedly began in mid-May and ended on July 29, 2017, when Equifax finally realized its security had been compromised. While Equifax allegedly learned of the Breach on July 29, 2017, Equifax did not acknowledge the Breach nor inform the public until September 7, 2017, well over one month later, Ms. Henderson contends. Equifax, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of Georgia and headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Equifax is one of the three largest credit bureaus in the United States. Equifax's business model revolves around buying, selling, collecting, and storing consumers' PII for financial gain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ranse M. Partin, Esq. CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN LLP 4200 Northside Parkway, NW Building One, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30327 Telephone: (404) 467-1155 E-mail: ranse@conleygriggs.com - and - Deval R. Zaveri, Esq. ZAVERI TABB, APC 402 West Broadway, Suite 1950 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 831-6988 E-mail: dev@zaveritabb.com EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Mass. Rules on Security Deposit Act Issue ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned SCOTT PHILLIPS, vs. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., Case No. SJC-12247 (Mass.), Judge Kimberly S. Budd of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk, concluded that the Legislature did not intend for the treble damages provision in Security Deposit Act, G. L. c. 186, Section 15B (7) to apply to a landlord's violation of the requirements for an itemized list set out in Section 15B (4) (iii), second sentence, or to the amount forfeited for violation of Section 15B (6)(b). Scott Phillips ("Tenant") and a friend entered into a written lease with Equity for an apartment in Waltham, for a term of from July 20, 2012, to May 19, 2013. Phillips paid a security deposit of $750 before moving into the apartment. He moved out of the apartment on May 20, 2013, and requested the return of his deposit. Equity responded with a statement of deposit account (statement), which was signed but not sworn to under pains and penalties of perjury, within thirty days of termination of occupancy. The statement listed charges totaling $968.08 and stated that Phillips owed a balance of $218.02 after subtracting the security deposit and accumulated interest. On June 23, 2013, Phillips' father, a guarantor of the lease, notified Equity that the statement did not comply with several requirements of the act. On Aug. 6, 2013, Phillips filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court, alleging that Equity had violated the act insofar as (i) the statement and attached document were not properly signed and sworn to under the pains and penalties of perjury; (ii) Equity did not provide sufficient documentation to support the charges that were deducted from the deposit; (iii) Equity impermissibly deducted cleaning charges from the deposit; and (iv) Equity failed to return the deposit within 30 days after the termination of the tenancy. He sought recovery under Section 15B (7), which provides, inter alia, for treble damages for certain violations of the act. Equity removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, citing diversity of citizenship under the Federal Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Equity also filed a counterclaim against Phillips for the remaining balance listed on the statement: $218.02. In 2015, the District Court ruled on both parties' motions for summary judgment. The District Court found that Equity's statement did not comply with the itemized deduction provision in the act, see Section 15B (4) (iii), second sentence, and therefore Equity had forfeited its right to retain any part of the deposit under Section 15B (6) (b). As a result, Phillips was entitled to recover his security deposit. However, the District Court judge also ruled that Phillips was not entitled to treble damages, as she concluded that the Legislature had excluded violations of the itemized deduction provision from the types of violations that qualified for treble damages under Section 15B (7). Finally, the judge ruled that Equity was entitled to no more than $102.42 for holdover rent, because it had forfeited its right to counterclaim for damage to the premises by violating the act, and could not make deductions for a late payment or earlier costs in an unrelated proceeding under Section 15B (4). Phillips appealed from the ruling, arguing that the District Court misinterpreted the act, and that he was entitled to recover treble the amount of the entire security deposit under Section 15B (7). Concluding that there was no controlling precedent to decide the question, the Court of Appeals certified the following question to this Court, pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 1:03, as appearing in 382 Mass. 700 (1981): whether the lessor's corresponding violation of Section 15B (6) (b)], which forfeits his right to retain any portion of the security deposit for any reason, also constitutes a violation of Section 15B (6) (e) thereby triggering the statute's treble damages provision with respect to the Massachusetts Security Deposit Law, when a lessor violates the itemized list requirements of Section 15B (4) (iii). Judge Budd concludes that a landlord violates Section 15B (6)(e) only where the landlord fails to return or account for any portion of the security deposit within 30 days, or where the landlord makes a deduction that does not fall within the categories authorized by Section 15B (4) (i), (ii), (iii), first sentence. A violation of Section 15B (6) (e) does not apply to any portion of the security deposit that was forfeited under another provision of Section 15B (6). As a result, the Judge's answer to the certified question is no. The Judge directed the Reporter of Decisions to furnish attested copies of her Opinion to the clerk of the Court. The clerk in turn will transmit one copy, under the seal of the Court, to the clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, as the answer to the question certified, and will also transmit a copy to each party. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/CnEXrK from Leagle.com. Joshua N. Garick -- Joshua@GarickLaw.com -- (David Pastor & Preston W. Leonard -- pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com -- also present) for the plaintiff. Craig M. White, of Illinois (Thomas H. Wintner also present) for the defendant. Jeffrey J. Pokorak -- jpokorak@suffolk.edu -- Catherine Dowie, & John Pierce Wilton for Accelerator-to-Practice Program of Suffolk University Law School & others. Lawrence J. Farber for Greater Boston Real Estate Board. Alex Mitchell-Munevar & Joseph Michalakes for City Life/Vida Urbana. XCEL ENERGY: "Calvert" Suit Alleges Labor Violations ---------------------------------------------------- Nicholas E. Calvert, Michael Montoya and Paul C. Uroda, and all others similarly-situated v. Xcel Energy, Inc. and Public Service Company of Colorado, Inc. dba Xcel Energy, Case No. 1:17-cv-02458 (D. Colo., October 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act, and the Colorado Wage Claim Act. Plaintiff Nicholas E. Calvert has been employed by Defendants as operations personnel in their Colorado power plants since 2013. He has been assigned to work in two of Defendants' power plants. Plaintiff Michael Montoya has been employed by Defendants as operations personnel in their Colorado power plants since 2011. He has been assigned to work in two of Defendants' power plants. Plaintiff Paul C. Uroda was employed by Defendants as operations personnel in their Colorado power plants from approximately 1982 through 2017. He was assigned to work in two of Defendants' power plants. Defendants Xcel Energy, Inc. and Public Service Company of Colorado, Inc., dba Xcel Energy, operated twenty-two power plants located throughout the State of Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew H. Turner, Esq. Naomi Y. Perera, Esq. Ellen M. Kelman, Esq. THE KELMAN BUESCHER FIRM 600 Grant Street, Suite 450 Denver, CO 80203 Tel: (303)-333-7751 Fax: (303)-333-7758 E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com nperera@laborlawdenver.com ekelman@laborlawdenver.com FINANCIAL FREEDOM: "Saris" Suit Alleges Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------ Dawn Saris, and all others similarly-situated v. Financial Freedom Mortgage LLC and John Does 1-10, Case No. 003995-17 (N.J. Super., October 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants' alleged sexual harassment and unlawful discharge in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Plaintiff Dawn Saris is a resident of the State of New Jersey. Plaintiff was employed by the defendant from October 10, 2016 until April 13, 2017. Defendant Financial Freedom Mortgage LLC is a corporation maintaining a principal place of business in Marlton, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Silverman, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Tel: (856) 727-9700 GLACIER COUNTY, MT: High Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Taxpayers Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Beth Baker of the U.S. Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the case captioned ELAINE MITCHELL, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GLACIER COUNTY, and STATE OF MONTANA, Defendants and Appellees, Case No. DA 16-0716 (Mont.) on the ground that Mitchell and the putative class ("Taxpayers") did not have standing to sue either the County or the State. The Taxpayers own real property and pay property taxes in Glacier County. They have been paying their taxes under protest in response to a March 2015 independent audit of the County's finances for fiscal years 2013 and 2014. The audit identified budget deficits in numerous County funds and stated that the County had exceeded its budgetary authority in many of those funds. A subsequent County Treasurer's report showed ongoing deficit balances in a number of the County's funds. The Taxpayers sued Glacier County and the State of Montana, alleging that both entities had failed to comply with budgeting and accounting laws. They asked the District Court for numerous forms of relief, including: (i) permission to prosecute the case as private attorneys general; (ii) a declaration that the County had failed to comply with generally accepted governmental accounting standards; (iii) a declaration that the County was in violation of laws designed to ensure "strict accountability" of government finances; (iv) a declaration that County officials who incurred financial obligations in excess of appropriations were personally liable for the resulting budget deficits; (v) an order requiring the State to withhold public funds from the County under the Single Audit Act until the County complied with its budgeting obligations; (vi) an order requiring the State to hold County officials personally liable for their failure to ensure strict accountability; (vii) an order appointing a receiver for the County; (viii) permission to prosecute the case as a class action; (ix) an order allowing Taxpayers to continue paying their taxes under protest until the County complied with its budgetary duties; and (x) a determination that the County violated Taxpayers' right to know under the Montana Constitution. In their Second Amended Complaint, the Taxpayers made the assertion regarding their alleged injury that based on the 2013 and 2014 Audits of the county, and the deficiencies described therein, it is foreseeable that the county's residents and taxpayers would be injured as a result of the State's failure to enforce the terms of the Single Audit Act to insure strict accountability of all revenues received and money spent by the county. They moved for partial summary judgment, and the State and County challenged Taxpayers' standing to sue. The District Court denied their motion for partial summary judgment, denied class certification, and dismissed the case for lack of standing. The Taxpayers appeal the district court's dismissal of their case. Judge Baker concludes that the Taxpayers have not demonstrated that their claimed potential for increased property taxes in response to the County's financial situation constitutes a concrete injury sufficient to confer standing in the case. She finds that the Taxpayers have not made concrete allegations that the County squandered a specific amount of money that it would need to recoup through increased property taxes. Without demonstrating a concrete injury, they cannot establish standing to sue for violations of the Single Audit Act or the Local Government Budget Accounting Act. Finally, the Judge also finds that the Taxpayers cite no authority that the private attorney general doctrine establishes a right to judicial relief independent of recognized standing requirements. Without an independent ground for standing, they cannot assert a claim under the Declaratory Judgments Act. Neither the private attorney general doctrine nor the Declaratory Judgments Act grants Taxpayers standing to seek relief in the case. For these reasons, Judge Baker concludes that the District Court correctly determined that the Taxpayers lack standing to sue either the County or the State. Accordingly, she affirmed the judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/3ZTYjH from Leagle.com. Lawrence A. Anderson -- laalaw@me.com -- (argued), Attorney at Law, P.C., Great Falls, Montana, for Appellants. Kirk D. Evenson -- kevenson@marralawfirm.com -- (argued), Marra, Evenson & Bell, P.C., Great Falls, Montana (Attorney for Glacier County) Gary M. Zadick, James R. Zadick (argued), Ugrin, Alexander, Zadick & Higgins, P.C., Great Falls, Montana (Attorneys for State of Montana), for Appellees. GOOD CHOWS: Court Approves $22,000 Settlement in Labor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned YA CHEN et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOD CHOWS INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14 Civ. 5960 (HBP) (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the parties' joint application to approve their settlement. The parties held two settlement conferences one before the Hon. Frank Maas, United State Magistrate Judge (ret.) and the other before the Hon. Kevin N. Fox, United States Magistrate Judge. The Plaintiffs formerly worked at the Defendants' restaurant; two Plaintiffs were deliverymen and one Plaintiff was a waiter. The Plaintiffs bring the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and seek recovery for allegedly unpaid wages and overtime premium pay. They also assert a claim based on the Defendants' failure to provide certain notice and wage statements as required by NYLL. In total, the Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to approximately $46,981.61 in unpaid wages and overtime premium pay. The Defendants deny the Plaintiffs' allegations. The Plaintiffs brought the action as a collective action, but reached a proposed settlement prior to conditional certification. The Settling Parties have agreed to a total settlement of $22,250. The Settling Parties have also agreed that the Plaintiffs' counsel will receive $1,000 to reimburse their out-of-pocket expenses and $7,083.33 for attorney's fees. After deduction of legal fees and costs (i) Ya Chen will get $8,567.20 from claimed amount of $28,411.82; (ii) Yong Jie Li will get $4,604.33 from claimed amount of $15,269.56; and (iii) Ting Yun Zhang will get $995.14 from claimed amount of $3,300.23. Magistrate Judge Pitman finds that the allocation of funds from the net settlement amount among the three Plaintiffs is fair and reasonable. The settlement allocates approximately 60.4% of the net settlement to Chen, 32.4% to Li and 7.2% to Zhang. According to information provided by the parties, Chen was employed by the Defendants for approximately 141 weeks, Li for 25 weeks, and Zhang for seven weeks. Chen's hourly rate was approximately $5, while Li and Zhang's hourly rates were $5.25. In light of the number of weeks worked by, and hourly rate paid to, the Plaintiffs, the allocation of the settlement fund is fair and reasonable. The proposed settlement also contains a release which is solely limited to wage and hour claims that have arisen prior to the date the Agreement is executed. Finally, the settlement agreement provides that approximately 33.3% of the settlement fund, excluding the Plaintiffs' counsel's out-of-pocket expenses, will be paid to the Plaintiffs' counsel as contingency fees. Accordingly, for all these reasons, Magistrate Judge Pitman approves the settlement in the matter. Although the settlement agreement resolves the claims between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants Good Chows and Li, the case remains open as to the Defaulting Defendants. Within 30 days of the date of the Order, the Plaintiffs are to either file a notice of dismissal as to the Defaulting Defendants pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.(a) (1) (A) or move for a default judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/M6tC8r from Leagle.com. Ya Chen, Plaintiff, represented by Jian Hang -- jhang@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC. Ya Chen, Plaintiff, represented by Keli Liu -- kliu@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC, Kevin Edison Vorhis -- kevin.vswlaw@gmail.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC & William Michael Brown -- wbrown@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC. Yong Jie Li, Plaintiff, represented by Jian Hang, Hang & Associates, PLLC & Keli Liu, Hang & Associates, PLLC. Ting Yun Zhang, Plaintiff, represented by Jian Hang, Hang & Associates, PLLC & Keli Liu, Hang & Associates, PLLC. Good Chows Inc., Defendant, represented by Song Chen -- schen@kktlawfirm.com -- Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C.. Cheng Tao Li, Defendant, represented by Song Chen, Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C.. Good Chows Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Song Chen, Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C.. Cheng Tao Li, Counter Claimant, represented by Song Chen, Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C.. Ya Chen, Defendant, represented by Jian Hang, Hang & Associates, PLLC. Ya Chen, Counter Defendant, represented by Keli Liu, Hang & Associates, PLLC & Kevin Edison Vorhis, Hang & Associates, PLLC. GREAT PLAINS: "Bushansky" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Bushansky, and all others similarly-situated v. Great Plains Energy Inc., Terry Bassham, David L. Bodde, Randall C. Ferguson, Jr., Gary D. Forsee, Scott D. Grimes, Thomas D. Hyde, Ann D. Murtlow, Sandra J. Price, and Johsn J. Sherman, Case No. 4:17-cv-00869 (W.D. Mo., October 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On July 9, 2017, Great Plains entered into an amended and restated agreement and plan of merger with Westar, Monarch Energy Holding, Inc., and King Energy, Inc. Plaintiff Stephen Bushansky is a continuous stockholder of Great Plains. Kansas City, Missouri-based Great Plains is the holding company for two vertically integrated electric utilities -- Kansas City Power & Light and KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company, which operate under the brand name KCP&L. Through its subsidiaries, Great Plains generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electricity in 47 counties in Missouri and Kansas. The Defendant's common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "GXP." The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Great Plains. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryce B. Bell, Esq. BELL LAW, LLC 2600 Grand Blvd., Ste. 580 Kansas City, MO 64108 Tel: (816) 886-8206 Fax: (816) 817-8500 E-mail: Bryce@BellLawKC.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. Alexandra E. Eisig, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com mrogovin@weisslawllp.com kkeenan@weisslawllp.com aeisig@weisslawllp.com H&M HENNES: Loses Bid for Partial Summary Judgment in "Lao" ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned SER LAO, Plaintiff, v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00333-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, denied the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment as to the waiting time claim. The Defendant operates approximately 80 retail and outlet stores throughout California. On approximately March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff was hired as a department manager at the Defendant's store located in Fresno, California. Approximately one year later, the Plaintiff was promoted to Store Manager, the highest- ranking position at the store level. On Sept. 24, 2015, Plaintiff was terminated. In this putative class action suit, the Plaintiff alleges his former employer, the Defendant, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements and failed to pay minimum wage, overtime wages, and premium pay for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class that consists of all non- exempt retail store employees who were employed by the Defendant in the State of California at any time from Dec. 11, 2011, through the present. He also proposes a subclass of all non-exempt retail store employees who were employed by the Defendant in the State of California at any time from Dec. 11, 2011, through the present who received overtime pay and non-discretionary incentive pay, including without limitation, bonuses ("Regular Rate Sub-Class"), and another subclass of all former employees who were employed by the Defendant in the State of California at any time from Dec. 11, 2012, through the present, whose employment was separated for any reason (voluntary or involuntary), including without limitation, resignation, termination, and/or lay-off, and upon their separation of employment received their final wages in the form of an ATM card ("ATM Card Class"). In the sixth cause of action, the Plaintiff alleges a violation of Labor Code Section 201-203, alleging that that the Defendant regularly and willfully failed and refused to pay all wages, including commissions, in a timely manner to employees upon discharge or resignation. In an earlier-filed wage and hour class action suit in state court, another employee, Suzanne Tran, sued the Defendant to challenge the Defendant's alleged policy and practice of requiring non-exempt employees to work substantial amounts of time "off-the- clock and without pay, and failing to provide non-exempt employees with meal and rest periods. In May of 2015, the Court certified the class of all individuals who are currently employed, or formerly have been employed by Defendant as non-exempt store management employee in the positions of supervisor, department manager, assistant manager and/or store manager and worked in the Defendant's stores in the State of California, at any time within four years prior to the filing of the original complaint until resolution of this action. Lao was a member of the Tran Class. On or about Feb. 29, 2016, the state court granted preliminary approval of the Tran Class Action Settlement. Following preliminary approval, the claims administrator mailed a Notice of Settlement and Claim Form to class members, including Plaintiff Lao. Plaintiff Lao admits that he received the Claim Form. He did not submit a completed Claim Form nor did he request to be excluded from the Tran settlement. After receiving no objections to the Tran Class Action Settlement, the state court granted final approval and dismissed the Tran action. In February of 2016, the parties to the instant action filed a stipulation with the Court regarding the impact of the Tran Class Action Settlement, which provided as that the Tran class action settlement does not apply to the Plaintiff and putative class members' claims for (i) unpaid wages/overtime under California Labor Code Sections 510, 558, 1194, 1197, and 11971.1 that resulted from alleged security checks; (ii) premium pay for missed meal and rest periods under California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512, that resulted from alleged security checks; and (iii) unpaid overtime under California Labor Code Sections 510, 558, 1994, and 1197.1 that resulted from the Defendant's alleged failure to include all non-discretionary items of compensation in the regular rate for the purposes of calculating overtime. Presently before the Court is the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiff's fourth cause of action for meal time violations and sixth cause of action for violation of California Labor Code Sections 201-203. The Plaintiff agrees to dismiss the fourth cause of action without prejudice and opposes the motion as to the sixth cause of action ("waiting time claim"). Judge Davila explains that at issue is whether the waiting time claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Because Tran's First Amended Complaint did not include factual allegations regarding security checks or ATM cards, the resulting Tran Class Action Settlement and judgment do not preclude the Plaintiff's waiting time claim in this case based upon those allegations. The parties' Stipulation in the instant action is consistent with this result. Although the Stipulation does not expressly reference the waiting time claim, it states that the Tran Class Action Settlement does not apply to various claims that resulted from alleged security checks. For these reasons, Judge Davila denied the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on the waiting time claim. With respect to the fourth cause of action, the Plaintiff offers to dismiss the claim without prejudice. The Defendant, however, asks that the Court dismiss the fourth cause of action with prejudice. In light of the Defendant's evidence that the Plaintiff never had to take a meal period shorter than thirty minutes due to a security check and the Plaintiff's tacit admission that he lacks sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue on the fourth cause of action, the Judge dismissed with prejudice the fourth cause of action. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/jh3p5j from Leagle.com. Ser Lao, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Sangwon Hyun -- dhyun@hyunlegal.com -- Hyun Legal APC. Ser Lao, Plaintiff, represented by Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, P.C.. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., Defendant, represented by Eve L. Torres -- eltorres@manatt.com -- Manatt, Phelps & Andrew Lee Satenberg -- asatenberg@manatt.com -- Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. HAWAIIAN TELCOM: "Franchi" Suit Alleges SEC Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Anthony Franchi, and all others similarly-situated v. Hawaiian Telcom Holdco, Inc., Richard A. Jalkut, Scott K. Barber, Kurt Cellar, Meredith J. Ching, Walter A. Dods, Jr., John Fontana, Steven C. Oldham, Robert B. Webster, Eric K. Yeaman, Cincinnati Bell Inc., and Twin Acquisition Corp., Case No. 1:17-cv-00519 (D. Hawaii, October 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on July 10, 2017, pursuant to which Hawaiian Telcom Holdco, Inc. will be acquired by Cincinnati Bell Inc. and Twin Acquisition Corp. On August 17, 2017, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. Plaintiff is the owner of Hawaiian Telcom common stock. Defendant Hawaiian Telcom is a holding company that, together with its subsidiaries, is the incumbent local exchange carrier for the State of Hawaii with an integrated telecommunications network. Hawaiian Telcom was incorporated in Delaware in 2004, but the Company's subsidiary, Hawaiian Telcom, Inc., was originally incorporated in Hawaii in 1883 as Mutual Telephone Company. The Individual Defendants are directors of Hawaiian Telcom. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wayne Parsons, Esq. WAYNE PARSONS LAW OFFICES 1406 Colburn Street, Suite 201C Honolulu, HI 96817 Tel: (808) 845-2211 Fax: (808) 843-0100 HIRO SUSHI: Court Approves $12,000 Labor Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the parties' joint application to approve their settlement in the case captioned YONGJIE LI, Plaintiff, v. HIRO SUSHI AT OLLIE'S INC., et al., Defendants, No. 16 Civ. 6800 (HBP) (S.D. N.Y.). The Plaintiff and the Defendants other than Christopher J. Phelan ("Settlement Defendants") reached a proposed settlement agreement shortly after a mediation session was held and before the Magistrate Judge could schedule a settlement conference. The Plaintiff formerly worked as a deliveryman at the Defendants' two restaurants from approximately January 2015 until his termination on April 10, 2016. The Plaintiff brings the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), snd the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and seeks to recover allegedly unpaid minimum wage, overtime pay, spread-of-hours pay, equipment costs, misappropriated meal credits and penalties for failure to provide wage statements and notices under the NYLL. The Defendants deny the Plaintiff's allegations. The Plaintiff brought the action as a collective action, but reached a proposed settlement with the Settlement Defendants prior to conditional certification. The parties have agreed to a total settlement of $12,000. They have also agreed that $1,075 of the settlement figure will be allocated to reimburse the Plaintiff's counsel for their out-of- pocket costs, $3,641.67 (or approximately 33%) of the remaining $10,925 will be paid to the Plaintiff's counsel as fees and the remaining $7,283.33 will be paid to the Plaintiff. The settlement agreement also contains a mutual release. First, Magistrate Judge Pitman finds that although the net settlement amount, after deduction of costs and legal fees, represents roughly half (or 50.1%) of the Plaintiff's allegedly unpaid minimum wage, overtime pay and spread-of-hour pay, that fact does not render it deficient. Second, the settlement will entirely avoid the burden, expense and aggravation of litigation. Third, the settlement will enable the Plaintiff to avoid the risks of litigation. Fourth, the counsel represents that the settlement is the product of arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel and that counsel advocated zealously on behalf of their respective clients during negotiations. Fifth, there are no factors that suggest the existence of fraud. Accordingly, for all these reasons, Magistrate Judge Pitman approved the settlement in the matter. In light of the settlement, he dismissed with prejudice (except as to Defendant Phelan) the action and without costs. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to mark the matter closed. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/QBRMrP from Leagle.com. Yongjie Li, Plaintiff, represented by John Troy, Troy Law, PLLC. Hiro Sushi at Ollie's Inc., Defendant, represented by Raymond Nardo -- raymondnardo@gmail.com -- Law Office of Raymond Nardo. 160 Restaurant Concepts LLC, Defendant, represented by Raymond Nardo, Law Office of Raymond Nardo. Freedom Place Rest, LLC, Defendant, represented by Raymond Nardo, Law Office of Raymond Nardo. 39 Wea Food Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Raymond Nardo, Law Office of Raymond Nardo. Alan Phillips, Defendant, represented by Raymond Nardo, Law Office of Raymond Nardo. Yi Lu, Defendant, represented by Raymond Nardo, Law Office of Raymond Nardo. Tao Rong, Defendant, represented by Raymond Nardo, Law Office of Raymond Nardo. Shlomo Sela, Defendant, represented by Raymond Nardo, Law Office of Raymond Nardo. HUDDLE HOUSE: Hughes Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROSIE HUGHES and NANCY CRANFORD, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees v. HUDDLE HOUSE, INC., a Georgia Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-00193-SA-RP (N.D. Miss., September 29, 2017), is brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and other damages. Huddle House Inc. is a Georgia corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Sandy Springs. The Defendant owns and operates Huddle House restaurants in states across the United States. The primary function of Huddle House restaurants is to sell food and beverage items to customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George B. Ready, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE B. READY 175 East Commerce St. P.O. Box 127 Hernando, MS 38632 Telephone: (662) 429-7088 E-mail: GBReady@georgegreadyatty.com - and - Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com HUDSON SEAFOOD: "Carlin" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA and SCPWA ---------------------------------------------------------------- KELLY CARLIN and DANETTE TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HUDSON SEAFOOD CORP., d/b/a, HUDSON'S SEAFOOD HOUSE ON THE DOCKS; ANDREW CARMINES, individually; and JOHN DOE 1-10, individually, Case No. 9:17-cv-02638-RMG (D.S.C., September 29, 2017), is brought individually and as a collective action for actual damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. Hudson Seafood Corp., doing business as Hudson's Seafood House on the Docks, is a South Carolina corporation maintaining offices and agents in the county of Beaufort, South Carolina. Andrew Carmines is an owner and officer of Hudson's. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Beaufort County doing business as Hudson's Seafood House on the Docks.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce E. Miller, Esq. Elisabeth A. Germain, Esq. BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A. 147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603 Charleston, SC 29412 Telephone: (843) 579-7373 Facsimile: (843) 614-6417 E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com bgermain@brucemillerlaw.com J.JILL INC: "Branen" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Branen, and all others similarly-situated v. J.Jill, Inc., Paula Bennett, David Biese, Michael Rahamim, Andrew Rolfe, Travis Nelson, Marka Hansen, Michael Eck, Michael Recht, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Jefferies LLC and TowerBrook Capital Partners L.P., Case No. 1:17-cv-11980 (D. Mass., October 13, 2017), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. This is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of J.Jill common stock in or traceable to the Company's March 9, 2017 initial public offering. The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement was negligently prepared and as a result contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make adequate disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Plaintiff Sharon Branen acquired shares of J.Jill common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO. Defendant J.Jill is a specialty women's apparel retailer headquartered in Quincy, Massachusetts. It was the registrant and issuer for the stock sold in the IPO, and its stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "JILL". The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of J.Jill. Defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and Jefferies LLC served as underwriters for the IPO. The Underwriter Defendants drafted and disseminated the Registration Statement. Defendant TowerBrook Capital Partners L.P. was the private equity sponsor of the IPO and sold its shares in the IPO. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP 110 Cedar Street, Suite 250 Wellesley Hills, MA 02481 Tel: (781) 431-2231 Fax: (781) 431-8726 E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 1540 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 230-0063 Fax: (619) 255-1856 JEHOVA'S WITNESSES: Faces $66-Mil. Sexual Abuse Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Hemant Mehta, writing for Patheos, reports that a Canadian attorney had asked the Superior Court of Quebec to give her a green light to proceed with a class action lawsuit against the Jehovah's Witnesses. She wanted to represent anybody abused by elders in the church as well as minors who were abused by fellow JW congregation members. The request was filed in the name of Lisa Blais, a Quebec Jehovah's Witness who alleges she was abused for years by her older brother, also a Jehovah's Witness. Ms. Blais says she complained to church officials about the alleged abuses when she was 16, and claims Jehovah's Witnesses did nothing to protect her. The allegations have not been proven in court. Woods wants "$250,000 per complainant for moral and punitive damages," a staggering amount of money given the scope of the alleged abuses. We're still waiting to hear about whether that lawsuit can proceed. In the meantime, however, a very similar lawsuit has been filed in Ontario. According to Trey Bundy at Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting: Current and former Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada have filed a $66 million class-action lawsuit against the religion's leadership claiming that its policies protect members who sexually abuse children. "It appears the organization has not established policies to prevent sexual abuse from happening and has faulty policies when sexual abuse is reported to it, at the hands of elders or otherwise," said Bryan McPhadden, the lead attorney on the case. They're still collecting names and information from people who believe they are victims. One source says the $66 million amount includes: . . . $20 million for damages from sexual and mental abuse by elders, $20 million for failing to protect children, and another $20 million for breach of duty of care. It'll take years for any of this to get through the courts, if it happens at all, but it's about damn time the Witnesses were punished for allowing these awful things to happen under their watch when they had the ability to prevent it. Remember that in Australia last year, a commission found that the JW organization did a piss-poor job of protecting children from sexual abuse. That was, in part, due to the Watchtower Society's own policies, like the "Two-Witness rule," which says church elders shouldn't take seriously a victim's account of abuse unless another person witnessed it . . . even though the only other person around may have be the abuser himself. The Commission also said many of the abusers weren't disciplined in any significant way. In some cases, they were even allowed to remain in the organization, giving them an opportunity to strike again. [GN] KARAKOSUITS.COM: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Karakosuits.Com Ltd. The case is styled as Richard Baldelli and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Karakosuits.Com Ltd, Karako Suits Ltd., Karako Mgmt Inc, Karako Holdings Llc, Karako Custom Llc, Karako Group Llc, Karako Of 36th Street Corp, Karako Of Carl Place Ltd, Karako Of Cross Bay Blvd Corp, Karako Of East Northport, Inc, Karako Of Farmingdale Ltd, Karako Of Lynbrook Ltd, Karako Of Monsey Ltd, Karako Of Patchogue Ltd, Karako Of Plainview Corp, Karako Of Rockaway Ltd, Karako Of Selden Ltd, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08058 (S.D. N.Y., October 19, 2017). Karakosuits.Com Ltd. is engaged in men's clothing & furnishings- retail in Inwood, NY.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. KELLOGG CO: Court Allows Limited Discovery in "Smith" ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada allowed limited discovery on the Defendants' motion to compel Arbitration in the case captioned BRIAN SMITH, Plaintiff, v. KELLOGG COMPANY and KELLOGG SALES COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01914-APG-GWF (D. Nev.). The Defendants move to compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate his Fair Labor Standards Act claim for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to an agreement between the parties ("Incentive Agreement"). Smith opposes the motion, arguing the arbitration provision of the agreement is unenforceable because it contains an illegal waiver of collective and class actions. The parties dispute the enforceability of the arbitration provision. Smith contends that had he not signed the agreement containing the arbitration provision, he would have been terminated, in violation of Morris v. Ernst & Young. He also argues that he could not opt out of the arbitration provision and still receive the offered incentive and severance benefits, which he argues violates Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc. Finally, he argues that Kellogg admitted to offering the benefits to induce Smith to waive his right to concerted activity. Kellogg asserts that Smith was not required to sign the agreement (and could have revoked his agreement within seven days of signing) and had he signed it, he would not have lost his job. Furthermore, Kellogg argues that it is not prohibited from conditioning a severance package on, among other things, a collective action waiver in an arbitration agreement. With regard to inducing a collective action waiver, Kellogg argues that Smith has offered no evidence to support his contention regarding its intentions. Judge Gordon finds that it remains unclear from the parties' briefing whether the arbitration agreement is enforceable and thus whether he must compel arbitration. He therefore ordered limited discovery aimed at fleshing out the issues the parties have raised. He ordered that the parties will conduct limited discovery related to the enforceability of the arbitration and waiver provisions, including the following: (i) whether any employee offered the Incentive Agreement refused to sign and if so, what the result was; (ii) whether the employees who did not sign the Incentive Agreement were eligible for any other severance benefits; (iii) whether Kellogg affirmatively communicated to employees regarding repercussions to their employment status if they did not sign the Incentive Agreement; (iv) whether there is evidence that Kellogg offered the incentive and severance benefits for the express purpose of limiting employees' freedom of choice regarding participation in collective or class actions; and (v) whether any employees revoked their agreement and if so, what the result was. Judge Gordon further ordered that the parties may serve each other with written discovery requests regarding these issues. Responses will be due within 14 days of service unless otherwise agreed to by the parties or ordered by the Court. The parties can stipulate to or petition the Court for permission to conduct depositions. The supplemental briefs will be due within 45 days of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/NJ5J9D from Leagle.com. Brian Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy -- Christian@gabroy.com -- Gabroy Law Offices. Brian Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff Martin Scarborough, Gabroy Law Offices, Alex David Dumas -- adumas@getmansweeney.com - - Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLLC & Michael J.D. Sweeney -- msweeney@getmansweeney.com -- Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLCC, pro hac vice. Scotty Poarch, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeff Martin Scarborough, Gabroy Law Offices & Michael J.D. Sweeney, Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLCC, pro hac vice. David W Phillips, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeff Martin Scarborough, Gabroy Law Offices & Michael J.D. Sweeney, Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLCC, pro hac vice. Daniel P Muesenfechter, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeff Martin Scarborough, Gabroy Law Offices & Michael J.D. Sweeney, Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLCC, pro hac vice. Richard Bush, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices & Jeff Martin Scarborough, Gabroy Law Offices. Andrew Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices & Jeff Martin Scarborough, Gabroy Law Offices. Renato Linsangan, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices & Jeff Martin Scarborough, Gabroy Law Offices. Scott Chwascinski, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff Martin Scarborough, Gabroy Law Offices. Charles Aaron Gee, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff Martin Scarborough, Gabroy Law Offices. Kellogg Company, Defendant, represented by Christiana L. Signs -- signsc@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, James Norman Boudreau - - boudreauj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Tami D. Cowden -- cowdent@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig & James M. Nelson -- nelsonj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice. Kellogg Sales Company, Defendant, represented by Christiana L. Signs, Greenberg Traurig LLP, James Norman Boudreau, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Tami D. Cowden, Greenberg Traurig & James M. Nelson, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice. LAN GARDEN: "Zhen" Suit Seeks Withheld Tips, Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Zhen Run Situ and Andy Chen, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lan Garden Restaurant and Bar Inc. d/b/a Lan Garden 88, John Ng and Michelle Chan1 Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-08091 (D. N.J., October 10, 2017), seeks unpaid wages, including withheld tips, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. Zhen and Chen were employed by the Defendants to work at their restaurant Lan Garden 88 located at 88 Rte. 46 W, Ridgefield, NJ 07657 as a chef and waiter respectively. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Keli Liu, Esq. HANG AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave. Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11355 Tel: (718) 353-8588 Fax: (718) 353-6288 LENDINGCLUB: Judge Allows Investors' Class Action Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Crowdfund Insider reports that a lawsuit between investors and LendingClub (NYSE:LC) received the green light to proceed as a class action from US District Judge William Alsup in California. The case stems from investors who purchased shares in the online lender only to see the value of those shares crater in the ensuing months. LendingClub's shares topped $25 at one point but has recently been hovering around $6 a share. According to the filing, the resignation of founder and former CEO Renaud Laplanche, along with "identified material weakness, including a lack of transparent communication and appropriate oversight in dealing with investors," were sufficient cause in pursuing a legal remedy to the decline in company valuation. Defendants in the suit include LendingClub, Laplanche, Carrie Dolan (LendingClub's former CFO), LendingClub directors and former directors, and the financial firms that underwrote LendingClub's IPO. The decision by Judge Alsup also acknowledged the "class representatives in the parallel state action," thus allowing the competing state action to proceed as well. Water and Power Employees' Retirement, Disability and Death Plan of the City of Los Angeles (WPERP) will serve as lead plaintiff, and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has been appointed as class counsel. LendingClub will be announcing its quarterly report for Q3 on November 7th after the bell. Expect part of the discussion to tackle the impact of the possible class action. [GN] LEFRAK ORGANIZATION: Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Brazil Bautista, writing for Real Estate Weekly, reports that residents of Battery Park City rental complex Gateway Plaza are seeking class action status in a lawsuit against the LeFrak Organization. New York Supreme Court Judge Melissa Crane will hear arguments on a motion for class certification on December 7. The action covers residents from the six buildings in the complex, with the addresses 345, 355, 365, 375, 385 and 395 South End Avenue, who have lived in the properties since April 1, 2008. The buildings contain more than 1,700 apartments and over 4,000 tenants. Prices for units in the complex start at $2,825 per month for a studio, according to the property's website. The lawsuit, which was originally filed in 2014, alleged that LeFrak leased homes that had defective windows and insulation, leading to extreme temperatures inside the apartments during the winter and summer. Conditions are said to be so bad that icicles have formed inside the apartments. Tenants say that LeFrak has failed to address structural defects at the property for more than a decade. "Plaintiff's counsel are looking forward to the opportunity to put all of the facts before the court. Gateway Plaza tenants have been made to suffer for years and it is time for the landlord, the LeFrak Organization, and its partners from the Fisher and Olnick Organizations, to be held accountable," said Lucas Ferrara, who is part of a team that is serving as counsel for the proposed tenant class. Marina Towers, the LeFrak Organization subsidiary named in the lawsuit, denied the claims, disparaging the assertions of lead plaintiff Maureen Koetz. "Marina Towers categorically rejects the allegations of Maureen Koetz, the person who is bringing this lawsuit. Marina Towers has sought to be a good landlord, and has spent millions on upgrades and improvements to Gateway Plaza. Marina Towers believes that the Court will dismiss the claims of Koetz, who is not even a tenant of Gateway Plaza, having left months ago. Marina Towers also believes the Court will refuse the attempts of Koetz's lawyers to make this meritless lawsuit a class action." The residents are seeking structural repairs for the Gateway Plaza complex, along with rent deductions and refunds for tenant and former tenants. During the December hearing, the court will also hear arguments on LeFrak's motion to file an amended motion to dismiss the lawsuit. A Supreme Court Judge earlier denied a motion to dismiss the case. [GN] LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Comments on Securities Class Action Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- LifeVantage Corporation (Nasdaq:LFVN) on Oct. 23 commented on the dismissal with prejudice of the putative class action complaint filed against the company in the United States District Court for the District of Utah on September 15, 2016 (in re LifeVantage Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 16-cv-00965-TS). "As some of you may be aware, the United States District Court for the District of Utah previously granted our motion to dismiss this lawsuit and, on September 18, 2017, the court entered final judgment dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice. We are now pleased to report that, in exchange solely for a release and without payment by LifeVantage of any consideration whatsoever, the lead plaintiffs have now agreed to forego taking any appeal from the judgment. The case is now fully and finally closed," said LifeVantage President and CEO Darren Jensen. Mr. Jensen commented further, "the dismissal of this lawsuit removes a level of distraction for us and for our independent distributors. We are excited for our independent distributors to continue their focus on selling our scientifically validated products and growing their businesses." About LifeVantage Corporation LifeVantage Corporation -- http://www.lifevantage.com-- is a science-based health, wellness and anti-aging company dedicated to helping people transform themselves internally and externally at a cellular level. Their scientifically-validated product lines include Protandim(R) Nrf2 and NRF1 Synergizers, TrueScience(R) Anti-Aging Skin Care Regimen, Petandim(R), AXIO(R) Smart Energy and the PhysIQ(TM)Smart Weight Management System. LifeVantage (Nasdaq:LFVN) was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. [GN] LINCOLN HILLS: Faces Closure Amid Inmates' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Molly Beck, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that the state's youth prison, where inmates and staff have both described a chaotic and unsafe environment, would be closed within one year under a proposal floated by a Madison lawmaker. "These juveniles have been systematically abused and neglected, and have had their constitutional rights violated time and again. We know that the current model of incarcerating juveniles does not work. It is time to take action," Rep. Chris Taylor, D-Madison, said in a memo seeking support from other lawmakers. The bill would require the Department of Corrections to "permanently" close the Lincoln Hills School for Boys and Copper Lake School for Girls in Irma within one year from the date the bill became law. The facility has been under investigation for nearly three years over allegations of inmate abuse, official misconduct, child neglect, tampering with public documents, intimidation of victims, use of pepper spray to cause bodily harm and intimidation of witnesses, among other potential crimes. Since then, prison administrators have also been the target of a number of lawsuits brought by current and former inmates alleging their constitutional rights have been violated through excessive stays in isolation and use of pepper spray and shackles -- including a class-action lawsuit moving through federal court that so far has prompted U.S. District Judge James Peterson to order DOC to drastically reduce or eliminate its use of solitary confinement, pepper spray and restraints to manage inmate behavior. Staff in recent weeks have said the prison has become increasingly unsafe since the federal judge's order, with prison guards defenseless against emboldened inmates and injuries to staff rising. But it's unclear if the proposal will get support from Republican lawmakers who control both houses of the Legislature. Rep. Mary Felzkowski, R-Irma, said it's time Taylor and other Democrats take responsibility for criticizing prison staff and referring to the inmates as "children." "These kids that are at Lincoln Hills, they didn't get there because they are truant," she said. Inmates at the prison are the state's most serious juvenile offenders. Rep. Felzkowski and Sen. Tom Tiffany, R-Hazelhurst, have asked Peterson to reverse the order in light of staff injuries since it took effect. She said in an interview on Oct. 23 that if DOC were given some leniency in how it manages behavior, the prison could be successful. "I think we need to let the experts do their job," she said. The union that represents Lincoln Hills employees said the bill doesn't indicate where juvenile offenders would go. "We need a real plan to solve this crisis," said Rick Badger, executive director of AFSCME Wisconsin. "This bill doesn't address the root of the problems present at Lincoln Hills and the long-standing dysfunction in the juvenile corrections system." Taylor said the department has known "about the systemic problems surrounding Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake for many years without addressing the root of the issue." While investigators first raided the prison in late 2015, complaints about an unsafe environment at the facility were raised at DOC and to Gov. Scott Walker as early as 2012. DOC Secretary Jon Litscher said that an upcoming study of prison infrastructure could include looking at closing or converting the prison to an adult prison but that he foresees it remaining the state's facility for serious juvenile offenders. [GN] LITCO PETROLEUM: Cranford Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- NANCY CRANFORD and ROSIE HUGHES, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees v. LITCO PETROLEUM, INC., a Mississippi Corporation, and, TAFT LITTLE and MARK LITTLE, Individually, Case No. 3:17-cv- 00194-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss., September 29, 2017), is brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and other damages. LITCO Petroleum, Inc., is a Mississippi corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Corinth, Mississippi. Taft Little has been the President of LITCO. Mark Little has been the Secretary-Treasurer of LITCO. LITCO owned and operated franchised Huddle House restaurants in Mississippi and other states in the United States. The primary function of LITCO's franchised Huddle House restaurants is to sell food and beverage items to customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George B. Ready, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE B. READY 175 East Commerce St. P.O. Box 127 Hernando, MS 38632 Telephone: (662) 429-7088 E-mail: GBReady@georgegreadyatty.com - and - Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com MC ELECTRONICS: Faces "Vazquez" Suit in California Superior Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MC Electronics, LLC. The case is styled as Yvette Vazquez, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MC Electronics, LLC and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2017- 00220907-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., October 19, 2017). Mc Electronics, Llc is a large-sized organization in the electronic manufacturers industry located in Hollister, CA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. Lawyers for Justice, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Tel: (818) 265-1020 Fax: (818) 265-1021 MDL 2445: Court Dismisses Suboxone Antitrust Suit Against I-PLC --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE SUBOXONE (BUPRENORPHINE HYDROCHLORIDE AND NALOXONE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:, Wisconsin, et al. v. Indivior Inc. et al. Case No. 16-cv-5073. STATE OF WISCONSIN By Attorney General Brad D. Schimel, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INDIVIOR INC. f/k/a RECKITT BENCKISER PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants, MDL No. 2445, Civ. A. No. 16-5073 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Defendant Indivior PLC ("I-PLC")'s motion to dismiss all claims against it due to its non-involvement in any of the alleged anticompetitive activity in the Amended Complaint. In June 2013, several putative classes initiated litigation against Defendants alleging anticompetitive behavior with respect to the marketing and sale of Suboxone. These cases were consolidated into a multi-district litigation ("MDL") assigned to the Court. Among those cases was the class action complaint brought by the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and the End-Payor Plaintiffs alleging that the Defendants unlawfully delayed and impeded competition from generic versions of Suboxone tablets, resulting in ongoing overpayments by consumers. On Dec. 3, 2014, Judge Goldberg issued an opinion dismissing one of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' stand-alone antitrust claims, a variety of state law claims by the End-Payor Plaintiffs, and claims against several of the other Defendant entities. He allowed the remaining federal and state law claims to proceed. On Dec. 23, 2015, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, a generic manufacturer and competitor of Indivior, filed a complaint regarding Indivior's alleged anticompetitive conduct with respect to Suboxone. That case was consolidated with the MDL. On Jan. 4, 2017, the Judge dismissed part of Amneal's claims that Indivior improperly delayed entry of generic tablets, all claims against Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and all claims against Indivior PLC. On Sept. 22, 2016, the Plaintiff States initiated the current litigation against the Defendants. The States filed a First Amended Complaint on Nov. 23, 2016, setting forth five causes of action as follows: (i) monopolization under the Sherman Act Section 2 against Indivior, I-PLC, and RBH; (ii) attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act Section 2 against Indivior, I-PLC, and RBH; (iii) conspiracy to monopolize under the Sherman Act Section 2 against all the Defendants; (iv) illegal restraint of trade under the Sherman Act Section 1 against all the Defendants; and (v) individual state law claims against all the Defendants. On Sept. 8, 2017, Judge Goldberg denied Indivior's Motion to Dismiss these claims and found that the Amended Complaint adequately alleged an anticompetitive product-hopping scheme and related conspiracy by Indivior. Subsequently, on Oct. 17, 2017, he granted RBH's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. On Dec. 12, 2016, I-PLC filed the motion to dismiss, as an entity formed after the operative events, it bears no liability for the anticompetitive conduct described in the Amended Complaint. The States responded on Jan. 30, 2017, and RBH filed a reply brief on Feb. 21, 2017. The gist of I-PLC's Motion to Dismiss is that I-PLC did not come into existence as an entity until 2014 -- well after the alleged anticompetitive conduct that occurred between 2007 and 2013. In response, the Plaintiffs offer six theories of liability against I-PLC: (i) the Amended Complaint asserts plausible direct claims against I-PLC for its anticompetitive conduct that continues to the present; (ii) the Amended Complaint validly asserts that I-PLC joined the Suboxone film conspiracy; (iii) I-PLC is the "successor" to RB Group and is therefore liable for RB Group's alleged misconduct; (iv) I-PLC is estopped from denying its role in the Suboxone film conspiracy; (v) Indivior Inc. is I-PLC's alter ego; and (vi) I-PLC is liable for the acts of its agent, Indivior Inc. Addressing each argument individually, Judge Goldberg finds that none of them have merit. He says perhaps recognizing that I-PLC has had no direct connection with the Amended Complaint's product- hopping antitrust scheme, the Plaintiffs offer a hodgepodge of theories in order to indirectly implicate I-PLC in the anticompetitive conduct and related conspiracy. As reflected by their briefing, however, the Plaintiffs' theories find no support either in the allegations of the Amended Complaint or in the public records of which they now ask that the Judge takes judicial notice. Indeed, the Plaintiffs do little to overcome the glaring fact that I-PLC did not come into existence until well after the relevant time period in the case and has not taken any obvious actions to perpetuate the alleged monopoly created by the anticompetitive scheme. Accordingly, Judge Goldberg granted I-PLC's motion in its entirety and dismissed all claims against it. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/lmVOuS from Leagle.com. MDL 2741: "Sweat" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on September 21, 2017 captioned Arthur Sweat, individually and all others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 5:17-cv-00127 was transferred on October 13, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-05877-VC to the proceeding. The case is being consolidated with MDL 2741. According to an order entered by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the California Northern District and assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The case is an action for damages as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the world's leading producer of glyphosate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene C. Brooks IV, Esq. BROOKS LAW FIRM PO Box 9545 Savannah, GA 31412 Telephone: (912) 233-9696 E-mail: gbrooks@brooks-law.com MDL 2792: "Alexander" Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on June 27, 2017 captioned Margo Alexander, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Best Buy Co., Inc., Sears Holding Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-04816 was transferred on October 13, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-01111-D to the proceeding. The case is being consolidated with MDL 2792. These cases concern the sale and marketing of certain defective Samsung home washing machines that have latent and inherent defects and Samsung's failed recall of these same washing machines. The lead case is Case No. 5:17-ml-02792-D. The Defendants supply consumer electronics and digital products in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James T. Crotty, Esq. CROTTY & ASSOCIATES 1561 South Blanchard Street Wheaton, IL 60189 Telephone: (312) 623-1599 E-mail: jamestcrotty@aol.com - 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 The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey Mark Wagner, Esq. KAYE SCHOLER 3 First National Plaza 70 West Madison Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 583-2300 E-mail: jeffrey.wagner@apks.com MDL 2792: "McCabe" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on June 28, 2017 titled Carolyn McCabe and Jason Ward, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Best Buy Co., Inc., Sears Holding Corporation, Case No. 2:17- cv-00242 was transferred on October 13, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-01110-D to the proceeding. The case is being consolidated with MDL 2792. These cases concern the sale and marketing of certain defective Samsung home washing machines that have latent and inherent defects and Samsung's failed recall of these same washing machines. The lead case is Case No. 5:17-ml-02792-D. The Defendants supply consumer electronics and digital products in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen C. Smith, Esq. LIPMAN & KATZ, P.A. P.O. Box 1051 Augusta, ME 04332-1051 Telephone: (800) 660-3713 - 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 MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Cooper Street Prisoners Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, dismissed without prejudice the case captioned ARTHUR J. ROUSE, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF MICHIGAN, et. al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-12276 (E.D. Mich.). The seven Plaintiffs are inmates who are currently incarcerated at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan. The Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action complaint and a petition for a writ of mandamus and a writ of habeas corpus. The petition for writ of habeas corpus has already been dismissed. On July 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen signed an Order of Deficiency because the Plaintiffs failed to submit the portion of their filing fee, which in this case would be $57.14, or to each file a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Magistrate Judge Whalen signed a separate order of deficiency requiring the Plaintiffs to provide sufficient copies of the complaint for service upon the Defendants. Both orders gave the Plaintiffs until Aug. 14, 2017 to comply with the orders. On July 25, 2017, four of the Plaintiffs filed an objection to the deficiency orders. A supplemental objection was filed by Plaintiff Rouse on July 28, 2017. On Aug. 8, 2017, this Court summarily dismissed without prejudice the joint petition for writ of habeas corpus and overruled the objection to the deficiency orders. It gave the Plaintiffs a 30- day extension to correct the deficiencies. To date, only Plaintiffs Lance Goldman and Cedric Simpson have filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees. Mr. Simpson, however, has subsequently moved to dismiss without prejudice his portion of the complaint. Mr. Rouse, the Lead Plaintiff, filed a prison trust account statement but did not file an actual application to proceed without prepayment of fees. Most importantly, none of the Plaintiffs have corrected the deficiency in that they have failed to provide sufficient copies of the complaint for service upon the Defendants. Judge Hood dismissed without prejudice to re-filing the complaint for want of prosecution, because of the Plaintiffs' noncompliance with Magistrate Judge Whalen's order by failing to provide the requested copies needed to effect service upon the Defendants. Because the complaint is deficient in this respect, the issue concerning the failure of some of the Plaintiffs to file individual applications to proceed without prepayment of fees is moot. The Judge denied as moot the Plaintiffs' remaining motions. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/L0FJxK from Leagle.com. Arthur Rouse, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Lance Goldman, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Chris Harner, Plaintiff, Pro Se. William Merriman, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Cedric Simpson, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Frank Doyle, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Robert Wilburn, Plaintiff, Pro Se. John Does, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Jane Does, Plaintiff, Pro Se. MID CITY GYM: Court Approves $50,000 Settlement in Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned SANTIAGO SIERRA, Plaintiff, v. MID CITY GYM AND TANNING LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 2892 (HBP) (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the parties' joint application to approve their settlement. The Plaintiff formerly worked at the Defendants' gym and tanning center, where his duties included maintaining and repairing exercise equipment and keeping the facility clean. He brings the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and seeks recovery for allegedly unpaid wages and overtime pay. The Plaintiff also asserts claims based on the Defendants' failure to provide certain notice and wage statements as required by the NYLL and the Defendants' failure to pay "spread-of-hours" pay. The Defendants deny the Plaintiff's allegations. The Plaintiff brought the action as a collective action, but reached the proposed settlement before conditional certification. The parties have agreed to a total settlement in the amount of $50,000. They have also agreed that one-third of that amount, $16,666.67, will be paid to the Plaintiff's counsel to reimburse counsel's out-of-pocket expenses and for attorney's fees. The proposed settlement also contains a release. First, Magistrate Judge Pitman finds that although the net recovery to the Plaintiff represents approximately 33.9% of his total potentially recoverable damages, the Plaintiff's net recovery exceeds the amount of unpaid wages, overtime pay and spread-of-hour pay that the Plaintiff has alleged, exclusive of liquidated damages, penalties and interests, by approximately $3,000. Second, the settlement will entirely avoid the burden, expense and aggravation of litigation. Third, the settlement will enable plaintiffs to avoid the risks of litigation. Fourth, the counsel represents that the settlement is the product of arm's- length bargaining between experienced counsel and that counsel advocated zealously on behalf of their respective clients during negotiations. Fifth, there are no factors here that suggest the existence of fraud. Accordingly, for all these reasons, Magistrate Judge Pitman approved the settlement in the matter. In light of the settlement, the action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs. The Clerk is respectfully requested to mark the matter closed. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/byoBrE from Leagle.com. Santiago Sierra, Plaintiff, represented by Jesse S. Barton -- jbarton@faillacelaw.com -- Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C.. Santiago Sierra, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Antonio Faillace -- Faillace@employmentcompliance.com -- Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C., Jesse S. Barton, Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C. & Michael Antonio Faillace, Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C.. Mid City Gym and Tanning LLC, Defendant, represented by Nolan Keith Klein, Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A.. Mid City Gym and Tanning LLC, Defendant, represented by David Michael Goldstein -- dmgoldstein.esq@gmail.com -- The Law Offices of David M. Goldstein, Esq. Mid City Gym and Tanning LLC, Defendant, represented by Valerie K. Ferrier, Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A.. Vincent Consalvo, Defendant, represented by Nolan Keith Klein, Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A., David Michael Goldstein, The Law Offices of David M. Goldstein, Esq & Valerie K. Ferrier, Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A.. Elida Consalvo, Defendant, represented by Nolan Keith Klein, Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A., David Michael Goldstein, The Law Offices of David M. Goldstein, Esq & Valerie K. Ferrier, Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A.. MO'S FISHERMAN: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Galvez Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLEMENTE GALVEZ, SALVADOR LOPEZ, JUAN LOPEZ and CARLOS MELGAR, Plaintiffs, on behalf themselves and others similarly situated v. MO'S FISHERMAN EXCHANGE, INC. d/b/a MO'S TOWSON AND MO'S; MO'S PULASKI HIGHWAY CORP., d/b/a MO'S WHITE MARSH, MO'S SEAFOOD RESTAURANT, AND MO'S; MO'S CRAB AND PASTA FACTORY, INC., d/b/a MO'S CRAB & PASTA AND MO'S LITTLE ITALY; MO'S FISHERMAN'S RITCHIE HIGHWAY, INC., d/b/a MO'S SEAFOOD FACTORY; MO'S BELAIR SEAFOOD, INC., d/b/a MO'S FISHERMAN'S WHARF AND MO'S INNER HARBOR; MO'S EASTERN AVENUE, INC., d/b/a MO'S SEAFOOD FACTORY NEIGHBORHOOD BAR & GRILL AND MO'S NEIGHBORHOOD BAR & GRILL; FISHERMAN'S WHARF INNER HARBOR, INC. d/b/a MO'S FISHERMAN'S WHARF AND MO'S INNER HARBOR; and MOHAMMED S. MANOCHEH, a/k/a MOHAMMAD S. MANOCHEH, d/b/a MO'S SEAFOOD RESTAURANT, MO'S FISHERMAN'S WHARF, MO'S, MO'S INNER HARBOR, MO'S TOWSON, MO'S WHITE MARSH, MO'S SEAFOOD FACTORY, MO'S CRAB AND PASTA FACTORY, AND MO'S NEIGHBORHOOD BAR AND GRILL, Case No. 1:17-cv-02901-GLR (D. Md., September 29, 2017), arises from the Defendants' alleged willful failure to pay the Plaintiffs their wages, including minimum and overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. Mo's Fisherman's Exchange, Inc., doing business as Mo's and Mo's Towson; Mo's Pulaski Highway Corp., doing business as Mo's White Marsh, Mo's Seafood Restaurant, and Mo's; Mo's Crab and Pasta Factory, Inc., doing business as Mo's Crab & Pasta and Mo's Little Italy; Mo's Belair Seafood, Inc., doing business as Mo's Fisherman's Wharf and Mo's Inner Harbor; Mo's Fisherman's Ritchie Highway, Inc., doing business as Mo's Seafood Factory; Mo's Eastern Avenue, Inc., doing business as Mo's Seafood Factory Neighborhood Bar & Grill, and Mo's Neighborhood Bar & Grill; and Fisherman's Wharf Inner Harbor, Inc., doing business as Mo's Fisherman's Wharf and Mo's Inner Harbor are Maryland corporations with their principal place of business in Baltimore County, Maryland. Mohammed S. Manocheh operates or, since May 19, 2012, has operated, restaurants at six locations in Maryland that serve food and drink on the premises. Mr. Manocheh owns each of the restaurants either personally or through corporations that he wholly owns, including Defendants Mo's Fisherman's Exchange, Mo's Pulaski Highway, Mo's Crab & Pasta, Mo's Belair, Mo's Ritchie Highway, Mo's Eastern Avenue, and Fisherman's Wharf.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew D. Freeman, Esq. Jessica P. Weber, Esq. Brooke E. Lierman, Esq. BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY LLP 120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 962-1030 Facsimile: (410) 385-0869 E-mail: adf@browngold.com jweber@browngold.com blierman@browngold.com - and - Sally Dworak-Fisher, Esq. Monisha Cherayil, Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER One North Charles Street, Suite 200 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 625-9409 Facsimile: (410) 625-9423 E-mail: dworak-fishers@publicjustice.org cherayilm@publicjustice.org MONSANTO COMPANY: "Batch" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on September 20, 2017 styled Carmen Batch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 7:17-cv-00160 was transferred on October 13, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-05875-VC to the proceeding. The case is an action for damages as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the world's leading producer of glyphosate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene C. Brooks IV, Esq. BROOKS LAW FIRM PO Box 9545 Savannah, GA 31412 Telephone: (912) 233-9696 E-mail: gbrooks@brooks-law.com MONTEREY FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Remands Class Action to State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held on Oct. 20 that a case removed to federal court based on the Class Action Fairness Act cannot be remanded to state court based on the "home-state controversy exception" where it was only established that two-thirds of a portion of the class was comprised of citizens of California. The putative action -- on behalf of residents of California and Washington -- was brought in San Diego Superior Court by Tiffany Brinkley against Monterey Financial Services Company which, she alleged, recorded or monitored telephone conversations with her without telling her in advance. She alleged invasion of privacy under the laws of both states, unlawful recording under California law, a violation of California's unfair competition law. Monterey removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") which creates diversity jurisdiction where the aggregate amount of the claims exceeds $3 million, any class member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, and there are at least 100 class members. Two-Thirds Requirement In seeking a remand, Ms. Brinkley cited the "home-state controversy exception" which applies where "two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed." District Judge William Q. Hayes granted the motion. Reversal came in an opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., who wrote: "In order to determine whether two-thirds of class members are California citizens, we must first determine the size of the class as a whole . . . Here, Brinkley's class consists of all individuals who made or received a telephone call with Monterey 'while physically located or residing in California and Washington.' By its terms, the class includes individuals who were physically located in, but were not residents of. California or Washington when they made or received a call with Monterey . . ." Showing Not Adequate He went on to say: "A plaintiff cannot remand an otherwise valid CAFA case to state court when only a portion of the class meets the two-thirds citizenship requirement . . . This is what Brinkley seeks to do here -- remand a class action based on evidence of only some class members' citizenship . . . [T]here is no evidence regarding the citizenship of class members who made or received a phone call from Monterey while located in. but not residing in, California or Washington." The case is Brinkley v. Monterey Financial Services Company, No. 17-56335. [GN] NASDAQ OMX: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Rabin" Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Patty Shwartz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the case captioned I. STEPHEN RABIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; NASDAQ OMX GROUP, INC.; BEDROCK TRADING LTD; BLUEFIN TRADING, LLC; CONSOLIDATED TRADING LLC; ELM TRADING, L.P.; FIRST DERIVATIVE TRADERS, LP; HAP TRADING, LLC; KEYSTONE TRADING PARTNERS, LLC; LARGO TRADING, L.P.; SUMMIT SECURITIES GROUP, LLC; SUMO CAPITAL, LLC; SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP LLP; SIG HOLDING LLC; TSR ASSOCIATES, LLC; V TRADER-CG, LLC; SUSQUEHANNA SECURITIES; SUSQUEHANNA INVESTMENT GROUP, Case No. 16-2511 (3d Cir.). The case concerns an options trading strategy undertaken on the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, NASDAQ OMX PHLX ("PHLX"), known as a "dividend play." Rabin filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendants alleging manipulation in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5(a) and (c). He claims that the Defendants conspired to manipulate the PHLX options market by undertaking the dividend play trading strategy on PHLX -- to dramatically increase the size of the short call option pool the day before underlying securities went ex-dividend -- and thereby capture a disproportionate amount of dividends and deprive market participants like Rabin of dividends. After Rabin amended his complaint twice, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss. The District Court granted the motions and ruled, among other things, that SRO immunity precluded Rabin's claim against Exchange Defendants, and that Rabin failed to state a claim against the Member Defendants for manipulation because he (i) did not allege that they injected false information into the market or created a false impression of supply and demand, (ii) did not allege actual reliance and was not entitled to a presumption of reliance on the basis that he relied on an efficient market free of manipulation, and (ii) did not sufficiently allege scienter. Rabin appeals. Judge Shwartz finds that there is no allegation that the items bought and sold were not entitled to be on the market, but Malack v. BDO Seidman, LLP's reasoning and concerns still apply and foreclose Rabin's theory of reliance. He asserts that he and the other class members relied on an honest, manipulation-free options market, and further that the OCC depends on a manipulation-free open interest pool. In essence, Rabin is asserting reliance based on the assumed integrity of the market, which Malack holds does not provide a basis to presume reliance. Because Rabin did not allege actual reliance and is not entitled to a presumption of reliance, he did not allege the element of reasonable reliance, and his manipulation claim thus fails. She concludes that the District Court therefore correctly dismissed Rabin's complaint. Accordingly, the Judge affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/tr13LI from Leagle.com. Lawrence Deutsch -- ldeutsch@bm.net -- [ARGUED], Phyllis M. Parker -- pparker@bm.net -- Robin Switzenbaum -- rswitzenbaum@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, David J. Stone -- stone@bespc.com -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040, New York, NY 10022, Counsel for Appellant. Stephen J. Kastenberg -- kastenberg@ballardspahr.com -- [ARGUED], Paul Lantieri, III -- lantierip@ballardspahr.com -- John W. Scott, Ballard Spahr, 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Appellees NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC and NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. David C. Bohan -- david.bohan@kattenlaw.com -- [ARGUED], Hannah O. Koesterer -- hannah.koesterer@kattenlaw.com -- Patrick M. Smith -- patrick.smith@kattenlaw.com -- Peter G. Wislon, Katten Muchin Rosenman, 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60661, Counsel for Appellees Bedrock Trading Ltd., First Derivative Traders, L.P., and Largo Trading, L.P. Kenton E. Knickmeyer -- kknickmeyer@thompsoncoburn.com -- [ARUGED], Felicia R. Williams, Thompson Coburn, One U.S. Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101, Counsel for Appellee Bluefin Trading LLC. William A. Harvey -- wharvey@klehr.com -- Paige M. Willan -- pwillan@klehr.com -- Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Harry P. Lamberson [ARGUED], 1024 North Western Avenue, Lake Forest, IL 60045, Counsel for Appellee Consolidated Trading LLC. Sidney S. Liebesman -- sliebesman@mmwr.com -- Carrie S. Love, Richard L. Scheff [ARGUED], Michael C. Witsch, Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, 123 South Broad Street, 28th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19109, Counsel for Appellees ELM Trading, L.P. and TSR Associates, LLC. Steven B. Mirow [ARGUED], 249 South 12th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Counsel for Appellee Keystone Trading Partners, LLC. Michael D. LiPuma -- mlipuma@lipumalaw.com -- Lisa B. Wershaw -- lwershaw@lipumalaw.com -- Law Office of Michael LiPuma, 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 1109, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Kyle D. Rettberg -- krettberg@ngelaw.com -- Phillip L. Stern -- pstern@ngelaw.com -- [ARGUED], Neal Gerber & Eisenberg, Two North LaSalle Street, Suite 1700, Chicago, IL 60602, Counsel for Appellees SIG Holding, Susquehanna International Group LLP, Susquehanna Investment Group, Susquehanna Securities, and V Trader-CG LLC. NATIONAL PROMOTION: Magee Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT MAGEE, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated v. NATIONAL PROMOTION REPORTS, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv- 09944 (E.D. La., October 2, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's alleged practice of making unwanted and unsolicited text message calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide. The Defendant did not obtain prior express consent from such consumers to make such text message calls and, therefore violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Mr. Magee argues. National Promotion Reports, LLC, is a New York-based for-profit corporation. National Promotion is a market research firm, which provides texting services to advertisers that contract with third- party businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LAW OFFICE 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534-5005 Facsimile: (504) 272-2956 E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com whb@beaumontcostales.com NPC INT'L: "Collins" Stayed Pending SCOTUS Ruling in "Lewis" ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted NPC's motion to stay proceedings in the case captioned TONY COLLINS, NAIMATULLAH NAYZEE, and ANN MURRAY, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NPC, INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-CV-00312-NJR-RJD (S.D. Ill.), pending the Supreme Court's decision in Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp.; and denied without prejudice both the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and NPC's motion to compel arbitration. The Plaintiffs bring the suit as a proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well a proposed class action under Illinois, Missouri, and Florida state law. The Plaintiffs are delivery drivers for NPC. As delivery drivers, they all have the same primary responsibility: to deliver pizza and other food and beverages to customers using their personal vehicles. The Plaintiffs allege that NPC under-reimbursed its delivery drivers for vehicular wear and tear, gas, and other driving- related expenses, effectively paying drivers well below the minimum wage. They claim thet NPC continues to under-reimburse them, preferring to selfishly pocket excess profits rather than fairly pay its employees. They have moved to conditionally certify a collective of all NPC drivers. NPC denies the Plaintiffs' claims and has moved to compel individual arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement signed by each Named Plaintiff. Alternatively, NPC asks the Court to stay all proceedings until the United States Supreme Court decides the legality of the class action waivers contained in the arbitration agreements. The arbitration agreement signed by the Named Plaintiffs requires them to use binding individual arbitration for any claims and expressly prohibits the Plaintiffs from acting on behalf of or as a part of any purported class, collective, representative, or consolidated action. Currently, the Seventh Circuit law holds that mandatory arbitration provisions precluding employees from seeking any class, collective, or representative remedies to wage-and-hour disputes are unenforceable because they interfere with employees' rights to engage in concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). The Ninth Circuit held likewise in Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP. The Second, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits have all held, however, that employee arbitration agreements containing class waivers are enforceable. On Jan. 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Lewis and consolidated the case with Morris and Murphy Oil. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Oct. 2, 2017, and an opinion is expected sometime in early 2018. Before the Court are the Motion for Conditional Certification filed by the Plaintiffs on March 31, 2017; the Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration or, Alternatively, to Stay Proceedings filed by NPC on May 1, 2017; and the Motion for Protective Order filed NPC on Aug. 7, 2017. The Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to NPC's motion to compel or to stay proceedings on May 31, 2017. Both parties have supplied the Court with supplemental authority in support of their respective positions. Judge Rosenstengel finds that conditionally certifying a collective and permitting class discovery, only to later decertify the collective a few months later (if the Supreme Court reverses the Seventh Circuit in Lewis) would defeat the purpose of judicial economy. The ruling in Lewis will have a direct impact on the issues in the case; in just a few months, the Plaintiffs will know whether the arbitration clause they signed is valid. Under these circumstances, he finds that staying the case is reasonable and prudent. He also finds that NPC has presented evidence that all three Named Plaintiffs would be prohibited from bringing a collective action should the Supreme Court's ruling in Lewis favor NPC, and the Plaintiffs have not argued that there are any putative class members who have not signed an arbitration agreement. The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated undue prejudice that would preclude the application of a stay in the case. Thus, the Judge does not believe it must conditionally certify the class regardless of the Defendant's arbitration defense. For these reasons, Judge Rosenstengel granted in part and denied in part NPC's Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration or, Alternatively, to Stay Proceeding. The case is stayed pending the Supreme Court's ruling in Lewis. Because the case is stayed, NPC's Motion for Protective Order is also granted. NPC's motion to compel arbitration, as well as the Motion for Conditional Certification filed by the Plaintiffs are denied without prejudice and may be refiled once the Supreme Court issues its opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/iRMo8s from Leagle.com. Tony Collins, Plaintiff, represented by C. Ryan Morgan, Morgan & Morgan PA. Tony Collins, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremiah L. Frei-Pearson, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Chantal Khalil -- ckhalil@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP & Todd S. Garber -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP. Naimatullah Nyazee, Plaintiff, represented by C. Ryan Morgan, Morgan & Morgan PA-Orlando, Chantal Khalil, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Todd S. Garber, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP & Jeremiah L. Frei-Pearson, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP. Ann Murray, Plaintiff, represented by C. Ryan Morgan, Morgan & Morgan PA, Chantal Khalil, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Todd S. Garber, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP & Jeremiah L. Frei-Pearson, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP. NPC International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine R. Sinatra -- ksinatra@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy et al. & Mark C. Tatum -- mtatum@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy et al. OAKMONT SENIOR: Must Show Why "Lollock" Must Not Be Remanded ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned DONALD LOLLOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OAKMONT SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-05912-JSW (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered Oakmont to show cause why the case does not fall within Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA")'s the home state and local controversy exceptions. On Oct. 16, 2017, Oakmont filed a Notice of Removal, in which it asserts that the Court has jurisdiction under the CAFA. The Defendant asserts that numerous members of the proposed class of the Plaintiffs are citizens of a different state from Oakmont. Oakmont also asserts that as an unincorporated association, under CAFA it is a citizen of California. Judge White explains that CAFA contains a "local controversy" exception which provides that a district court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over a class action in which the plaintiff class and at least one defendant meet certain characteristics that essentially make the case a local controversy. It also contains a "home-state controversy" exception, which provides that a court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over a class action in which two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed. Although these exceptions are not jurisdictional, in light of the allegations in the Complaint and Oakmont's apparent citizenship, Judge White ordered Oakmont to show cause why the case does not fall within the exceptions outlined in Section 1332(d)(4)(A) or Section 1332(d)(4)(B), and, thus, why the case should not be remanded. Oakmont's response to the Order to Show Cause will be due by Nov. 1, 2017. If the Court determines a response from the Plaintiffs is warranted, it will issue a further order setting a deadline by which the Plaintiffs should respond. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/qEPp62 from Leagle.com. Donald Lollock, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly Jean Knapp, Stebner and Associates. Donald Lollock, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Healey -- chris.healey@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, George Nobuo Kawamoto, Stebner and Associates, Guy Burton Wallace -- gwallace@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jennifer Ann Uhrowczik, Schneider Wallace Cottrel Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Kathryn Ann Stebner, Stebner & Associates, Michael Dougald Thamer -- michael@trinityinstitute.com -- Law Offices Of Michael D. Thamer PC & Sarah S. Colby, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns. Kathleen Lollock, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly Jean Knapp, Stebner and Associates, Christopher J. Healey, Dentons US LLP, George Nobuo Kawamoto, Stebner and Associates, Guy Burton Wallace, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jennifer Ann Uhrowczik, Schneider Wallace Cottrel Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Kathryn Ann Stebner, Stebner & Associates, Michael Dougald Thamer, Law Offices Of Michael D. Thamer PC & Sarah S. Colby, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns. Zareen Khan, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly Jean Knapp, Stebner and Associates, Christopher J. Healey, Dentons US LLP, George Nobuo Kawamoto, Stebner and Associates, Guy Burton Wallace, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jennifer Ann Uhrowczik, Schneider Wallace Cottrel Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Kathryn Ann Stebner, Stebner & Associates, Michael Dougald Thamer, Law Offices Of Michael D. Thamer PC & Sarah S. Colby, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns. Frank Pearson, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly Jean Knapp, Stebner and Associates, Christopher J. Healey, Dentons US LLP, George Nobuo Kawamoto, Stebner and Associates, Guy Burton Wallace, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jennifer Ann Uhrowczik, Schneider Wallace Cottrel Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Kathryn Ann Stebner, Stebner & Associates, Michael Dougald Thamer, Law Offices Of Michael D. Thamer PC & Sarah S. Colby, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns. Jo Ella Nashadka, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly Jean Knapp, Stebner and Associates, Christopher J. Healey, Dentons US LLP, George Nobuo Kawamoto, Stebner and Associates, Guy Burton Wallace, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jennifer Ann Uhrowczik, Schneider Wallace Cottrel Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Kathryn Ann Stebner, Stebner & Associates, Michael Dougald Thamer, Law Offices Of Michael D. Thamer PC & Sarah S. Colby, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns. Jane Burton-Whitaker, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly Jean Knapp, Stebner and Associates, Christopher J. Healey, Dentons US LLP, George Nobuo Kawamoto, Stebner and Associates, Guy Burton Wallace, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jennifer Ann Uhrowczik, Schneider Wallace Cottrel Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Kathryn Ann Stebner, Stebner & Associates, Michael Dougald Thamer, Law Offices Of Michael D. Thamer PC & Sarah S. Colby, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns. Oakmont Senior Living, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gabe Peterson Wright -- gwright@hahnlaw.com -- Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP & Kyle Thomas Overs -- kovers@hahnlaw.com -- Hahn Loeser and Parks LLP. PETLAND KENNESAW: Sued for Allegedly Selling Sick Puppies --------------------------------------------------------- Jim Strickland, writing for WSBTV, reports that a popular, but controversial, metro Atlanta pet store faces a class action lawsuit accusing it of selling sick puppies. Consumer investigator Jim Strickland was the first reporter to get Petland Kennesaw on camera to address the allegations. They invited Channel 2 Action News into the store to see the conditions first-hand. A spokesperson said the store will investigate some of the allegations internally after Strickland revealed he had a recording of Petland's attorneys admitting the store sold a sick dog. "That's something that we will have to look into internally. Absolutely," Petland public relations director Lauren Petz told Mr. Strickland. The lawsuit accuses the franchise of peddling sick dogs bred in puppy mills to unsuspecting buyers. "They bargained for a healthy, happy, adoptable pet. They got heartbreak, pain and expense," said attorney Tamara Feliciano, who represents customers with those claims. A bulldog named Attie is one of those dogs. Owners John Stavrinakis and Mallory Eidson said the dog was coughing on the sales floor. "They were just kind of writing it off, 'oh it's just kennel cough, it's nothing, she'll be fine,'" Mr. Stavrinakis said. "She wasn't fine. She was far from it." Attie was diagnosed with severe pneumonia days after the store sold her. "This is dog ICU, and you don't expect that with your puppy," Eidson said. Petland said Mr. Stavrinakis insisted he take the dog home even with the cough, which he denied to Strickland. Attie is fine after more than a week in veterinary care and Petland ultimately paid a vet bill of more than $12,000. Mr. Stavrinakis gave Channel 2 Action News a recording of a phone call with a store attorney making this admission: "The dog was still on meds . . . We probably should not have released the dog even with the insistence of customers who want to bring our beautiful dogs home." The store filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit, calling it frivolous and a copycat of a suit that failed eight years ago. "Being silent makes us look guilty and that's something that we are not," Petz said. Former vet's employee blows whistle Another allegation in the lawsuit claims a former preferred Petland Kennesaw vet signed off on puppies too sick to sell. Specifically, dogs were sold with certificates of health rubberstamped with Walton Waller's signature. Mr. Strickland tried to contact Waller, and found his veterinary license had been suspended AND WAS sent to prison on an unrelated assault conviction. "It needs to be told; the truth does need to come out," said Jessica Padgett, one of Waller's former employees. She said she worked with Waller for a few months and swore in an affidavit the former vet falsified records to make unhealthy dogs easier to sell. "He told me he said 'I nick paperwork, that's what I do. I alter the paperwork,'" Ms. Padgett said. Adrienne Carter received paperwork from Petland Kennesaw that said Waller did the health check on a Yorkie named Daydream -- a small dog she claims an employee told her was the runt of the litter. Ms. Carter bought the puppy as a Christmas gift for her daughter. Daydream was dead before Valentine's Day. RECENT INVESTIGATIONS: "She died in my arms," Ms. Carter said, adding that the cost was "$2,900 for a dog that lived five weeks." Ms. Carter said she believes Petland knowingly sold her a sick dog. Petland said their puppies get multiple vet checks during the trip from the breeder to the store. Ms. Carter was offered store credit as compensation for the dog, per her contract with Petland. "We do everything in our power to prevent situations like that," Ms. Petz said of Ms. Carter's purchase. Dr. Michael Good was Petland's preferred vet for 10 years. He's also swore in an affidavit the Kennesaw location put dollars in front of the health of dogs. Petland said they haven't worked with Good since 2005 and he has no knowledge of current operations. "The whole motivation is profit," Dr. Good said. "You can't tell me for a minute these people were concerned about the health and welfare of these animals." Questions about dog breeders Ms. Petz said store owner Brad Parker does his own inspections of breeder facilities complete with pictures. "These aren't dogs from puppy mills at all," she said. Petland Kennesaw provided several USDA inspection documents from its current breeder pool. JK Puppies is a new licensee and an inspector found no non-compliant items. Iowa records show the owner, Jan Budden, is a veteran breeder. In 2015, the USDA cited her for two dogs in need of dental work and one with a serious eye malady. "These animals are sick as a result of the conditions in which they were bread," Feliciano told Strickland. Attie the bulldog came from a broker called Platinum Puppies. The Humane Society reported Platinum Puppies is a known puppy mill. The report referenced a February 2013 USDA inspection that cited Platinum Puppies for several "enclosures [that] did not allow the animals to stand and sit" and reselling dogs from unregistered sources. Ms. Petz said Petland is committed to steering clear of violators. "If there are any compliance issues as far as USDA regulation work, as soon as we're notified we no longer work with them," she said. Petland said it sells nearly 1,200 puppies a year and the store is among the top five of all Petland franchises. Ms. Petz told Strickland other stores use the Kennesaw franchise as a training model. While each animal comes with a warranty, Ms. Petz said there are no guarantees. "Even in the cleanest, happiest, healthiest environment, a puppy, a baby, an animal can get sick," Ms. Petz said. [GN] PHILIP MORRIS: Wins $5.3MM Verdict in Non-Engle Tobacco Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Celia Ampel, writing for Law.com, reports that Fort Lauderdale attorneys won a rare $5.3 million wrongful death verdict for the family of a smoker who picked up her first cigarette in the 1970s -- decades after most tobacco plaintiffs in Florida. Brenda Gentile was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2014, placing her far outside the time frame of the Engle class, a group of plaintiffs diagnosed with smoking-related illnesses before 1996 who benefit from certain pre-determined jury findings. Engle plaintiffs usually started smoking as teenagers in the 1950s. When the Florida Supreme Court disbanded the statewide Engle class action, the justices determined tobacco companies in those days conspired to hide the health effects of cigarettes. But the Gentile family's lawyers argued the tobacco industry's misconduct did not end there. "She started smoking after warnings were on the packs," said Kelley/Uustal partner Eric Rosen, who tried the case with associates Kimberly Wald and Josiah Graham. "But the conspiracy to cast doubt and controversy over whether smoking was harmful and addictive that the cigarette companies created in the 1950s was ongoing during the time she was growing up and during her adult life." Mrs. Gentile smoked Philip Morris USA brands throughout her life, starting with filtered Parliament cigarettes in high school and later moving on to low-tar Merit cigarettes, Mr. Rosen said. From the late 1980s until her death three years ago, she smoked Virginia Slim "ultra-light" cigarettes. In trial against Philip Morris, Mr. Rosen pointed to internal documents showing the company knew people believed filtered or low-tar cigarettes were healthier than the unfiltered versions the generation before Gentile smoked. "Their internal documents talked about how the Merit smoker is this health-conscious individual," Mr. Rosen said. "They want to quit but they end up with Merits, because they can't quit." The "health-conscious" marketing often targeted young women like Mrs. Gentile, Mr. Rosen argued, with the Virginia Slims brand positioned as a "long, white, feminine cigarette." And when tested, filtered cigarettes registered low levels of nicotine and tar on machines. "But people aren't machines," Mr. Rosen said. " They smoke to get nicotine because they're addicted. So they smoke more deeply. They take bigger puffs, deeper puffs." The plaintiffs lawyers backed their argument with a body of research showing people who smoke filtered cigarettes are developing lung cancer, particularly adenocarcinoma, at high rates. "Despite decreases in smoking prevalence and concomitant decreases in squamous cell carcinoma, the incidence of lung adenocarcinoma among smokers has increased since the 1960s," a 2014 U.S. Surgeon General's report found. "Evidence from birth-cohort models and epidemiologic studies are sufficient to conclude that the increased risk of lung adenocarcinoma among smokers is due to changes in the design and/or composition of cigarettes." Philip Morris argued plaintiffs counsel did not show the cigarettes were defective or that consumers believed they were avoiding the risk of cancer or addiction by smoking filtered cigarettes. "By the time Mrs. Gentile began smoking in 1972 or 1973 (and even in the 1950s), the public had available to it pervasive information about the health risks of smoking," defense counsel wrote in a court filing. "At most, Plaintiff has presented evidence that consumers such as Mrs. Gentile believed that some types of cigarettes (notably "light"/low-tar cigarettes) were less risky than others. . . . He has not shown that consumers believed any conventional cigarettes . . . were actually safe." The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The jury awarded Mrs. Gentile's family $7.1 million, finding the cigarettes were defective and that Philip Morris concealed the health effects and addictive nature of the products, leading to Gentile's lung cancer and death. Because the jury assigned Gentile 25 percent of the liability, the amount awarded by Palm Beach Circuit Judge Meenu Sasser in the final judgment was $5.3 million. Mr. Rosen said he hopes the verdict opens the door for others who started smoking later than the Engle class. "I hope they would pursue claims, because we can prove that the cigarettes are defective by design," he said. "What we presented at trial and what the jury found was that the cigarettes were unreasonably dangerous to the consumer, and that the cigarette companies over the past few decades have incorporated design features that made the cigarettes much more dangerous." Case: Michael Gentile v. Philip Morris USA Case No.: 50-2015-CA- 005405 Description: Tobacco Filing date: May 12, 2015 Verdict date: Oct. 10, 2017 Judge: Palm Beach Circuit Judge Meenu Sasser Plaintiffs attorneys: Eric Rosen, Kimberly Wald and Josiah Graham, Kelley/Uustal, Fort Lauderdale Defense attorneys: Frank Cruz- Alvarez and Rachel Forman, Miami, Kristopher Verra, Tampa, Shook, Hardy & Bacon; Keri Arnold, New York, Jason Ross, Tampa, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer Verdict amount: $5.34 million POINT BLANK: Faces Class Action Over Ballistic System Vests ----------------------------------------------------------- Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., a privately held business headquartered in Pompano Beach, Florida, on Oct. 23 disclosed that a lawsuit had been filed against it, by attorneys representing two police associations and three officers who are members of one of the associations, in a putative class action case alleging that shoulder straps of self-suspending ballistic system vests wear out over time with use. Point Blank noted that with millions of vests sold, no officer has been injured as a result of the manufacturing and/or design defect the plaintiffs allege, and in fact many officers' lives have been saved as a result of wearing Point Blank Body Armor over the past 44-years. Point Blank Body Armor is the most popular body armor worn by officers today with the largest agencies in the country today using Point Blank Body Armor as the personal protection of choice. Point Blank disputes the plaintiffs' allegations and claims raised in the case, which is pending in the Southern District of Florida, and strongly believes that the allegations do not support the putative class claims against the Company. Point Blank will vigorously defend itself against the lawsuit and has hired outside counsel to assist in this matter. The Company has retained outside Counsel on the matter through the law firms of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, and Berger Singerman LLP. Chief Executive Officer, Daniel Gaston, stated, "Our reputation has proven with more than 40 years of experience and expertise saving and protecting lives of law enforcement officers, soldiers, sailors and marines of the United States of America, that Point Blank provides a high performance, quality body armor product. We stand behind the performance, the durability and the safety of those products, and we appreciate and value our end-users as they protect and defend the United States and our communities. Point Blank is committed to customer service, and has a process in place for reviewing customer complaints and warranty claims regarding Point Blank products and working directly with its customers to resolve any issues in a timely manner. We appreciate your continued support of Point Blank products and remain dedicated to customer satisfaction." About Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.pointblankenterprises.com-- is a provider of high performance protective solutions, including bullet, fragmentation and stab resistant apparel and related accessories. Through its key brands, Point Blank Body Armor, Protective Apparel Corporation of America (PACA), Protective Products, PARACLETE(R), The Protective Group (TPG), Advanced Technology Group (ATG), and First Tactical, the Company ranks as the largest global supplier of ballistic armor systems in the world. The Company's ballistic solutions have been credited with saving countless lives for the most important customers in the world, including the U.S. Armed Forces, Department of Defense, Federal Government and law enforcement, corrections and security personnel, both domestically and abroad. [GN] POLLO OPERATIONS: Approval of Revised "Preman" Class Deal Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case MARK PREMAN, Plaintiff, v. POLLO OPERATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-443-Orl-41GJK (M.D. Fla.), Judge Carlos E. Mendoza of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, denied the parties' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Revised Class Action Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class. Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommends that the parties' Unopposed Motion be denied and the parties be permitted to file a renewed motion. After a de novo review of the record, and noting that the parties filed a Joint Waiver of Objection, Judge Mendoza agrees with the analysis in the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, he adopted and confirmed the Report and Recommendation. He directed the parties to file a renewed motion on or before Nov. 15, 2017. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/6b0fat from Leagle.com. Mark Preman, Plaintiff, represented by John Allen Yanchunis, Sr. - - jyanchunis@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, PA. Mark Preman, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Betten Cohen -- jcohen@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, PA & Octavio Gomez, Morgan & Morgan, PA. Pollo Operations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason L. Margolin -- jason.margolin@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Jeffrey J. Mayer -- jeffrey.mayer@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, pro hac vice, Kelly J.H. Garcia -- kelly.garcia@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Lawrence D. Silverman -- lawrence.silverman@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP & Sandra Jessica Millor -- sandra.millor@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP. PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Yuwsuf Abdul-Ghafoor, et al. v. Professional Transportation, Inc. et al., Case No. 17-cv-01105 (S.D. Ill., Oct. 13, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were or are employees of Defendants engaged as over the road drivers of non-commercial motor vehicles. Defendant Professional Transportation, Inc.'s primary business is ground transportation of railroad crews both interstate and intrastate. Defendant conducts business in the state of Illinois and in several locations in this judicial district, to include Collinsville, Dupo and East St. Louis, Illinois. Defendant Ronald D. Romain is the president and secretary of Defendant PTI. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terry D. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TERRY D. SMITH 13509 W. 10th Court N. Wichita, KS 67235 Tel: (316) 361-0062 E-mail: tsmith@smithlawoffices.net - and - Joseph H. Cassell, Esq. ERON LAW, P.A. 229 E. William, Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67202 Tel: (316) 262-5500 E-mail: jhcassell@eronlaw.net PROGRESSUS THERAPY: "Shelton" Settlement Bid Filing Due Dec. 22 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned TERRI SHELTON, LAURA THOMPSON individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PROGRESSUS THERAPY, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company, PROGRESSUS THERAPY, INC., A Florida Corporation, PROGRESSUS, INC., A Delaware Corporation, INVO HEALTHCARE Liability Company, INVO HEALTHCARE, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company, THERAPY STATION ASSOCIATES, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 200, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00518-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ordered the Plaintiff to file a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement on or before Dec. 22, 2017. Judge Nunley directed the Plaintiff to set the Motion for hearing on regular notice pursuant to Local Rule 230. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/v9Kvq2 from Leagle.com. Terri Shelton, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Mason -- info@gurneelaw.com -- Gurnee Mason & Forestiere LLP. Terri Shelton, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas P. Forestiere, Gurnee Mason & Forestiere Llp. Laura Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Mason, Gurnee Mason & Forestiere LLP & Nicholas P. Forestiere, Gurnee Mason & Forestiere Llp. Progressus Therapy, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jason S. Campbell -- jscampbell@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP. Progressus Therapy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason S. Campbell, Winston & Strawn LLP. Progressus, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason S. Campbell, Winston & Strawn LLP. Invo Healthcare Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jason S. Campbell, Winston & Strawn LLP. Invo Healthcare, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jason S. Campbell, Winston & Strawn LLP. Therapy Station Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jason S. Campbell, Winston & Strawn LLP. RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Accused by "Manopla" Suit of Invading Privacy ----------------------------------------------------------------- EVELYN MANOPLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RAYMOURS FURNITURE COMPANY, INC. d/b/a RAYMOUR & FLANIGAN, Case No. 3:17-cv-07649 (D.N.J., September 29, 2017), is brought to secure redress because the Defendant allegedly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and invaded the Plaintiff's privacy by causing unsolicited text messages to be made to her and other class members' cellular telephones through the use of an auto-dialer. Raymour is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with its corporate office located in Liverpool, New York. Raymour operates a retail furniture company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com READY SECURITY: "Lewis" Action to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Lewis, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ready Security, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 158861/2017 (N.Y. Sup., October 4, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, and unpaid spread of hours due, liquidated damages, as well as an award of reasonable attorney's fees under New York Labor Law and the New York Minimum Wage Act. Defendant was engaged in the business of providing security services where Plaintiff was employed as a security guard. Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Tel: (718) 740-1000 Fax: (718) 355-9668 Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com RENT-A-CENTER INC: Can Partly Compel Arbitration in "Blair" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In case captioned PAULA BLAIR, ANDREA ROBINSON, and FALECHIA HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC., a Delaware corporation, RENT-A-CENTER WEST, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 17-02335 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and denied their motion to stay. The action arises from rent-to-own agreements, which the Named Plaintiffs contend set prices in excess of the maximum installment payment rates allowable under California law. The Defendants ("RAC") own and manage rent-to-own stores throughout California, which rent household merchandise (e.g., appliances, electronics, furniture) to consumers for a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly fee. The terms of these rent-to-own agreements are set forth in written contracts between the consumer and RAC, which are signed by the consumer at the point of sale. The consumer is also given a separate arbitration agreement when she makes a purchase, which she is likewise asked to sign. Plaintiff Blair filed the action in the Superior Court for the County of Alameda in April 2017 seeking relief for violations of (i) the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act, (ii) the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), (iii) Usury, (iv) Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, and (v) Unjust Enrichment. RAC then removed the action to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. In May 2017, Blair filed an amended complaint dropping her unjust enrichment claim. RAC then brought the instant motion to compel Blair's suit to arbitration, to strike the class action claims arising from her 2015 agreement, and to stay Blair's claims arising from her 2016 purchase (from which she opted out of arbitration). While the motion has been pending, Blair amended her complaint a second time to add Plaintiffs Robinson and Harris, though as stated, RAC has not moved to compel their claims to arbitration. In summary, Judge Alsup finds Blair's public injunctive claims under Section 17200, the CLRA, and the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act fall within the scope of McGill v. Citibank, N.A. Blair's usury claim, however, is not amenable to public injunctive relief, and RAC did not run afoul of McGill by requiring that Blair arbitrate this claims in her individual capacity only. Accordingly, the Judge granted RAC's motion to compel arbitration is as to Blair's usury claim. The rule in McGill, in contrast, provides that parties can compel public injunctive claims to arbitration. It merely prohibits contracts that waive such claims altogether. McGill does not violate the FAA's prohibition on rules specifically disfavoring arbitration, and is therefore not preempted by the FAA. Judge Alsup also finds that three of Blair's claims seek relief not permitted under the arbitration agreement. That prohibition runs afoul of California law. Accordingly, her claims for violations of Section 17200, the CLRA, and the Karnette Rental- Purchase Act must be severed from the arbitration and may be brought in Court. He denied RAC's motion to compel arbitration as to Blair's Section 17200, CLRA and Karnette Rental-Purchase Act claims. Finally, Judge Alsup finds that a stay is unnecessary. RAC has succeeded in compelling only a single claim to arbitration for violation of California's usury law. The usury claim concerns only Blair's 2015 purchase of her air conditioning unit, and whether the installment payments related to that purchase constitute a loan, which exceeds the interest rate limit established by Article XV of the California Constitution. The Karnette Rental-Purchase Act claim, on the other hand, concerns whether RAC exceeded benchmark maximum prices for the various items purchased by Blair, Robinson, and Harris, as well as RAC's compliance with labeling and record-keeping requirements set forth in the Act. The CLRA claim also carries a distinct legal concern -- whether RAC's contracts contain misleading or unconscionable terms. Lastly, the Section 17200 claim is predicated on violations of all of the claims. While there will no doubt be some minor overlap in the facts in arbitration and in court, California's usury law is sufficiently distinct from the other consumer protection laws Blair sues under that parallel proceedings will not be unduly duplicative or burdensome. Accordingly, the Judge denied RAC's motion to stay court proceedings. For these reasons, Judge Alsup granted RAC's motion to compel arbitration as to Blair's usury claim, and denied as to Blair's claims under Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. He also denied RAC's motion to stay. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Amended Order is available at https://is.gd/nlD5mD from Leagle.com. Paula L. Blair, Plaintiff, represented by James T. Hannink -- Hannink@SDLaw.com -- Dostart Hannink and Coveney. Paula L. Blair, Plaintiff, represented by Zachariah Paul Dostart - - Paul.Dostart@SDLaw.com -- Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP, Eric Prince Brown -- ebrown@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP & Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP. Andrea Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Prince Brown, Altshuler Berzon LLP, James T. Hannink, Dostart Hannink and Coveney, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP & Zachariah Paul Dostart, Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP. Harris A. Falechia, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Prince Brown, Altshuler Berzon LLP, James T. Hannink, Dostart Hannink and Coveney, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP & Zachariah Paul Dostart, Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christina Guerola Sarchio -- Christina.sarchio@dechert.com -- Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, H. Joseph Escher, III -- h.joseph.escher@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, Kirsten F. Gallacher - - Gallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Robert Kenneth Dixon -- rdixon@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo, Robert Francois Friedman -- rfriedman@littler.com - - Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice, Vickie E. Turner -- vturner@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Gregory G. Iskander -- giskander@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.. Rent-A-Center West, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christina Guerola Sarchio, Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, H. Joseph Escher, III, Dechert LLP, Kirsten F. Gallacher, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Robert Kenneth Dixon, Wilson Turner Kosmo, Robert Francois Friedman, Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice, Vickie E. Turner, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Gregory G. Iskander, Littler Mendelson, P.C. RENT-A-CENTER INC: Court to Hear Class Claims at Cert. Hearing -------------------------------------------------------------- In case captioned PAULA BLAIR, ANDREA ROBINSON, and FALECHIA HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC., a Delaware corporation, RENT-A-CENTER WEST, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 17-02335 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered that issues regarding Plaintiff Blair's class action claims will be decided at the class certification hearing. On reconsideration, Judge Alsup has vacated its prior order on the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, strike class action claims, and stay proceedings, and issued an Amended Order, removing the language striking Plaintiff Blair's class action claims. Issues regarding class action claims will be decided at the class certification hearing. The Defendants will brief this issue as part of any opposition to class certification. The Plaintiffs will have an opportunity to address these claims in their reply. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/5roELN from Leagle.com. Paula L. Blair, Plaintiff, represented by James T. Hannink -- Hannink@SDLaw.com -- Dostart Hannink and Coveney. Paula L. Blair, Plaintiff, represented by Zachariah Paul Dostart - - Paul.Dostart@SDLaw.com -- Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP, Eric Prince Brown -- ebrown@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP & Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP. Andrea Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Prince Brown, Altshuler Berzon LLP, James T. Hannink, Dostart Hannink and Coveney, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP & Zachariah Paul Dostart, Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP. Harris A. Falechia, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Prince Brown, Altshuler Berzon LLP, James T. Hannink, Dostart Hannink and Coveney, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP & Zachariah Paul Dostart, Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christina Guerola Sarchio -- Christina.sarchio@dechert.com -- Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, H. Joseph Escher, III -- h.joseph.escher@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, Kirsten F. Gallacher - - Gallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Robert Kenneth Dixon -- rdixon@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo, Robert Francois Friedman -- rfriedman@littler.com - - Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice, Vickie E. Turner -- vturner@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Gregory G. Iskander -- giskander@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.. Rent-A-Center West, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christina Guerola Sarchio, Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, H. Joseph Escher, III, Dechert LLP, Kirsten F. Gallacher, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Robert Kenneth Dixon, Wilson Turner Kosmo, Robert Francois Friedman, Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice, Vickie E. Turner, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Gregory G. Iskander, Littler Mendelson, P.C. RIO TINTO: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a national investor-rights law firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington with 11 offices across the country, on Oct. 23 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Rio Tinto PLC (NYSE: RIO) American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between October 23, 2012 and February 15, 2013 (the "Class Period"). This action, Colbert v. Rio Tinto PLC, et al., No. 17-cv-08169, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges Rio Tinto and certain of its former executives violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from October 23, 2017. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, contact attorney Reed Kathrein at 510-725- 3000, email RioTinto@hbsslaw.com or visit www.hbsslaw.com/cases/RioTinto, where you may view the complaint online. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Rio Tinto is incorporated in the United Kingdom ("U.K."), and its ADRs are listed on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE"). The Company, a mining and metals company, finds, mines, processes, and markets mineral resources. It has operations in Australia, North America, Asia, Europe, Africa, and South America. During August 2011, Rio Tinto completed its purchase of certain coal assets in Mozambique for approximately $3.7 billion (net of cash acquired at acquisition). This business became known as Rio Tinto Coal Mozambique, or "RTCM." The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding RTCM's true value. More specifically, the complaint alleges: (a) within months of the purchase, now-former senior executives knew of material problems adversely affecting RTCM's multi-billion dollar publicly reported valuation; (b) as time passed, the same senior executives knew of additional problems and events that, under applicable accounting rules, required an impairment analysis of RTCM and reductions in its reported valuation; (c) instead of timely performing the impairment analysis, these executives thwarted it and continued to tout RTCM's value to investors; (d) when a concerned employee outside the normal financial control function discovered or suspected the senior executives concealed RTCM's negative valuation from Rio Tinto's Board of Directors, he bypassed them and directly alerted the Chairman, who ordered an investigation into RTCM's true value; (e) on January 15, 2013, less than a year and a half after the purchase, the Board determined RTCM was severely impaired and should be written down by billions of dollars to $611 million; and (f) the impact of this writedown was reported to investors in Rio Tinto's financial report on Form 6-K filed with the SEC on February 15, 2013. As a result of this news and other disclosures, Rio Tinto's ADR price declined. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a national investor- rights law firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington with 11 offices across the country. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. [GN] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Sanda" Product Suit Transferred to D. Okla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned David Sanda and Micki Wells, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC., Best Buy Co., Inc., Sears Holding Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00988 (D. S.C., October 10, 2017), was transferred to the Western District of Oklahoma on October 10, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-01088. Sanda seeks replacement damages associated with the replacement of defective products and parts; attorneys' fees and costs resulting from fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express warranty, negligence, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and violation of state consumer protection laws. On November 4, 2016, Samsung announced a recall involving 34 models of Samsung top-load washing machines with mid-controls or rear-controls. The washing machine top unexpectedly detaches from the washing machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury from impact. Sanda purchased one of the subject Samsung washing machines (model number WA52J8700AP/A2) from a Lowe's Home Center store in Simpsonville, South Carolina. Samsung is a major designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of consumer appliances, including washing machines, which it distributes throughout the United States. The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Best Buy Co., Inc. and Sears Holding Corporation are major retail outlets selling appliances, including Samsung washing machines. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John Daniel Kassel, Esq. JOHN D KASSEL LAW FIRM PO Box 1476 Columbia, SC 29202 Tel: (803) 256-4242 Fax: (803) 256-1952 - and - Theile B. McVey, Esq. KASSEL MCVEY PO Box 1476 Columbia, SC 29202 Tel: (803) 256-4242 Fax: (803) 256-1952 Email: tmcvey@kassellaw.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Mullford" Suit Transferred to D. Okla. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Clayton Mullford, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03017 (D. Neb., February 7, 2017), was transferred to the Western District of Oklahoma on October 10, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-01085. Mullford seeks injunctive relief by requiring Samsung to issue corrective actions including notification, recall, service bulletins and fully-covered replacement parts and labor or replacement, damages associated with the replacement of defective products and parts, attorneys' fees and costs resulting from fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express warranty, negligence, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and violation of state consumer protection laws. On November 4, 2016, Samsung announced a recall involving 34 models of Samsung top-load washing machines with mid-controls or rear-controls. The washing machine top unexpectedly detaches from the washing machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury from impact. Mullford purchased the said washing machine from Nebraska Furniture Mart. Samsung is a major designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of consumer appliances, including washing machines, which it distributes throughout the United States. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Rowe, Esq. KINSEY, ROWE LAW FIRM 3800 VerMaas Place Suite 100, Pioneers Pointe Plaza Lincoln, NE 68502-4454 Tel: (402) 438-1313 Fax: (402) 438-1654 - and - William B Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N Pennsylvania Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Tel: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Raabe" Product Suit Transferred to D. Okla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Linda L. Raabe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC., Best Buy Co., Inc., Sears Holding Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00946 (E.D. Cal., May 4, 2017), was transferred to the Western District of Oklahoma on October 10, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-01086. Raabe seeks replacement, damages associated with the replacement of defective products and parts, attorneys' fees and costs resulting from fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express warranty, d annegligence, in violation of the Magnuson- Moss Act and violation of state consumer protection laws. On November 4, 2016, Samsung announced a recall involving 34 models of Samsung top-load washing machines with mid-controls or rear-controls. The washing machine top unexpectedly detaches from the washing machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury from impact. Raabe purchased a washing machine with model number WA400PJHDWR/AA from a Best Buy store in Citrus Heights, California. Samsung is a major designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of consumer appliances, including washing machines, which it distributes throughout the United States. The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Best Buy Co., Inc. and Sears Holding Corporation are major retail outlets selling appliances, including Samsung washing machines. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James Robert Noblin, Esq. GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. 4500 East Pacific Coast Highway, Fourth Floor Long Beach, CA 90804 Tel: (562) 391-2487 Fax: (415) 477-6710 - and - Robert S. Green, Esq. GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. 2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101 Larkspur, CA 94939 Tel: (415) 477-6700 Fax: (415) 477-6710 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Kellas" Product Suit Transferred to Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Candice Kellas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC., Best Buy Co., Inc., Sears Holding Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01232 (N.D. Ga., April 1, 2017), was transferred to the Western District of Oklahoma on October 11, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-01092. Kellas seeks replacement, damages associated with the replacement of the defective products and parts, attorneys' fees and costs resulting from fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express warranty, and negligence, in violation of the Magnuson- Moss Act and violation of state consumer protection laws. On November 4, 2016, Samsung announced a recall involving 34 models of Samsung top-load washing machines with mid-controls or rear-controls. The washing machine top unexpectedly detaches from the washing machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury from impact. Kellas purchased a Samsung washing machine with model number WA48H7400AP/A2 from The Home Depot, Inc. online store. Samsung is a major designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of consumer appliances, including washing machines, which it distributes throughout the United States. The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Best Buy Co., Inc. and Sears Holding Corporation are major retail outlets selling appliances, including Samsung washing machines. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David Andrew Bain, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC 1050 Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel: (404) 724-9990 Fax: (404) 724-9986 - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N Pennsylvania Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Tel: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Anderson" Suit Transferred to D. Okla. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Chad Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC., Best Buy Co., Inc., Sears Holding Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01569 (D. Minn., May 11, 2017), was transferred to the Western District of Oklahoma on October 12, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-01094. Anderson seeks replacement, damages associated with the replacement of the defective products and parts, attorneys' fees and costs resulting from fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express warranty, negligence, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and violation of state consumer protection laws. On November 4, 2016, Samsung announced a recall involving 34 models of Samsung top-load washing machines with mid-controls or rear-controls. The washing machine top unexpectedly detaches from the washing machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury from impact. Anderson purchased one of the subject Samsung washing machines (model number WA56H9000AW/A2) from an appliance center in Mankato, Minnesota. Samsung is a major designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of consumer appliances, including washing machines, which it distributes throughout the United States. The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Best Buy Co., Inc. and Sears Holding Corporation are major retail outlets selling appliances, including Samsung washing machines. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg M. Corwin, Esq. Joshua Hegarty, Esq. GREGG M. CORWIN & ASSOCIATE LAW OFFICE, P.C. 1660 South Highway 100, Suite 500 St. Louis Park, MN 55146 Tel: (952) 544-7774, 479-4160 - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Tel: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Lane" Suit Moved to W. Dist. Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Diane Lane, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, Llc, Best Buy Co., Inc., Sears Holding Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00371 (D. Del., April 7, 2017), was transferred to the Western District of Oklahoma on October 4, 2017, under Case No. 17-cv-01056. Lane seeks injunctive relief by requiring Samsung to issue corrective actions including notification, recall, service bulletins and fully-covered replacement parts and labor or replacement, damages associated with the replacement of the defective products and parts, attorneys' fees and costs resulting from fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express warranty, negligence, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and violation of state consumer protection laws. On November 4, 2016, Samsung announced a recall involving 34 models of Samsung top-load washing machines with mid-controls or rear-controls. The washing machine top unexpectedly detaches from the washing machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury from impact. Lane purchased a washing machine (model number WA40J3000SW/A2) from Lowe's Home Center. Lane began experiencing loud excessive vibration from the said washing machine despite numerous repairs attempts. Samsung is a major designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of consumer appliances, including washing machines, which it distributes throughout the United States. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 984-3800 SANOFI-PASTEUR: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $61.5MM ---------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that buyers of a bacterial meningitis vaccine made by Sanofi-Pasteur will share in a $61.5 million settlement of an antitrust class action following the Oct. 17 ruling by a U.S. judge granting final approval to the deal. U.S. District Judge John Michael Vazquez also approved $20.5 million in legal fees, $7.2 million in costs, and service awards of $100,000 each to three medical practices that served as class representatives. All of the roughly 30,000 class members who submit claim forms will share in the portion of the settlement fund that remains after legal fees, costs and service awards are paid. The suit said that Sanofi-Pasteur suppressed competition for its pediatric meningococcal vaccine, Menactra, by charging physicians and hospitals up to 35 percent more for its product unless they agreed to buy Sanofi's pediatric vaccines exclusively. Sanofi-Pasteur is the vaccines division of French drug manufacturer Sanofi. Sanofi-Pasteur had the entire market for meningococcal vaccine to itself until 2010, when competition arrived in the form of Menveo, a comparable vaccine made by Novartis. But Sanofi-Pasteur has held on to a 93 percent market share for meningococcal vaccine because that same year it instituted a program requiring buyers to agree to purchase its full portfolio of six vaccines exclusively, and not to buy competing products from a different manufacturer, lest they face higher prices, the suit claimed. The suit was filed in 2011. In 2012, according to court documents, Sanofi filed a stand-alone counterclaim against the class representatives and members of any class that might be certified in the case, claiming their aggregation of vaccine purchases through physician buying groups was an unlawful collective action that caused prices to fall below competitive levels. The counterclaim was dismissed on procedural grounds but Sanofi brought it again as part of its answer. It was dismissed with prejudice, but Sanofi sought interlocutory appellate relief. U.S. District Judge Jose Linares, now the chief judge in the district, denied Sanofi's leave for interlocutory appeal of the dismissal of its counterclaim. In November 2014, the parties entered into private mediation with Charles Renfrew, a former U.S. District Court judge from the Northern District of California, but the mediation ended without agreement. In March 2016, the parties entered into mediation with attorney William O'Shaughnessy of McCarter & English in Newark, but the mediation ended with no resolution. In September 2016, Sanofi moved for summary judgment and filed a motion to exclude testimony of the plaintiffs' primary expert witness on economics, Harvard Law School professor Einer Elhauge. Elhauge advanced a theory that "bundling" deals such as the one promoted by Sanofi, which gave favorable terms to those who agree to buy a group of products from one seller, was a restraint of trade. Reply briefs were due Jan. 20, 2017. With motions pending, the parties reached the settlement in December 2016. Linda Nussbaum of the Nussbaum Law Firm in New York, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs and the class, said the settlement was "an excellent outcome for the class. It was a very difficult theory, and a difficult case, We made it work," she said, referring to the so-called bundling theory of antitrust violation. Eric Cramer -- ecramer@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague in Philadelphia, who was also co-lead counsel for plaintiffs and the class, said "we are gratified to be able to settle this case and distribute funds to thousands of doctors across the country." For their work on the case, Castro v. Sanofi-Pasteur, the American Antitrust Institute gave its award for Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Economics to Elhauge, the Harvard economist, in 2016. In 2017, it bestowed its Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice to Cramer. Sanofi-Pasteur, for its part, continues to deny that its actions were improper, according to a statement from company spokeswoman Anna Robinson. "Sanofi Pasteur confirms it has entered a settlement agreement with the plaintiff on behalf of all Class Members to fully and finally resolve the parties' respective claims. In the litigation, Sanofi has vigorously denied and continues vigorously to deny the plaintiffs' claims and any allegation of wrongdoing. The Settlement Agreement likewise does not involve any admission or finding of wrongdoing. The Settlement Agreement also does not require Sanofi to change its business practices -- practices that Sanofi believes are pro-competitive and benefit customers and patients by providing substantial discounts, reducing prices, increasing immunizations, and protecting against disease," the statement said. "Despite Sanofi's strong defenses, Sanofi recognizes that continued litigation is likely to be extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming and thus has agreed to enter into this Settlement Agreement to avoid the further expense, inconvenience, risk and distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation. Sanofi is finally putting to rest this case by obtaining complete dismissal of the action and a release by settlement class members of all released claims," the statement said. Sanofi was represented by lawyers from the Newark office of Proskauer Rose and Newark-based Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga. [GN] SANTANDER BANK: "Karlberg" Remanded to Philadelphia State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Harvey Bartle, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania remanded the case captioned DREW KARLBERG, et al., v. SANTANDER BANK, N.A., Civil Action. No. 17- 3561 (E.D. Pa.) to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County for failure to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy. Karlberg, a Pennsylvania citizen, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, originally filed the action against the Defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. He alleges various state law causes of action related to improper overcharges for private mortgage insurance collected, held in trust, and distributed by the Defendant. The putative class consists only of Pennsylvania citizens. After the Plaintiff's amended class action complaint was docketed in the state court on July 11, 2017, the Defendant filed a Notice of Removal in the court on Aug. 9, 2017. The Notice of Removal avers that the Individual Plaintiff and the Defendant are of diverse citizenship and that the other jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act have been met, including an aggregate amount in controversy in excess of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The Plaintiff has now filed a Motion to Remand. While there is no dispute about the existence of diversity of citizenship, he maintains that the jurisdictional amount cannot be satisfied. He also argues that the Notice of Removal was untimely. The Plaintiff has challenged the Defendant's contention in its Notice of Removal that the action meets the requisite amount in controversy for federal subject matter jurisdiction. He maintains that the Defendant misreads the amended complaint and that even if the amended complaint can be read to plead the requisite amount in controversy, the sum of the damages he and the class seek in good faith do not allow for removal. Consequently, in accordance with Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, the Court held a hearing to provide the Defendant, the party invoking federal jurisdiction, an opportunity to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the aggregate amount in controversy surpasses $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. At the hearing, the Defendant chose to rest on its Notice of Removal and the allegations in the amended complaint. The Plaintiff likewise did not present any evidence. After careful review of the amended complaint, the claims alleged, and the Notice of Removal, Judge Bartle finds that the Defendant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy has been satisfied. While the Plaintiff's pleading is inartfully drafted, the Judge finds that the amount sought in good faith by the Plaintiff and each class member for each monthly overcharge is only tens of dollars at most. In light of the facts pleaded and the legal claims asserted, it is not plausible that the class can recover in excess of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Accordingly, Judge Bartle remanded the case to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County for failure to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/CvsmVK from Leagle.com. DREW KARLBERG, Plaintiff, represented by CLAYTON PATRICK FLAHERTY -- cfia.herty@anapolwetss.com -- ANAPOL WEISS. DREW KARLBERG, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID S. SENOFF -- dsenoff@anapolweiss.com -- Anapol Weiss, MICHAEL H. GAIER -- mgaier@shaffergaier.com -- SHAFFER & GAIER, MICHAEL D. SHAFFER -- mshaffer@shaffergaier.com -- SHAFFER & GAIER LLC & HILLARY B. WEINSTEIN -- hweinstein@anapolweiss.com -- AAPOL WEISS. SANTANDER BANK, N.A., Defendant, represented by FRED W. HOENSCH -- fred.hoensch@piblaw.com -- Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLC & SCOTT W. PARKER -- scott.parker@piblaw.com -- PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLC. SCHARFMAN ORGANIZATION: Tenants Sue Over Illegally High Rents ------------------------------------------------------------- Will Parker, writing for The Real Deal, reports that in January of 2016, Gov. Andrew Cuomo wrote a letter to the landlords of New York City. He told property owners that if they received the J-51 tax break but charged market-rate rents, they needed to put their apartments back in rent stabilization or they could face big fines. But the edict didn't unleash a wave of state investigators poring through property owners' records and hauling landlords to court; it's been largely up to tenants to complain that they're being overcharged -- if they're even aware. An analysis showed that less than half of violating landlords voluntarily re-regulated their apartments during 2016. And now, a new lawsuit alleges that one of the landlords who did re-register a J-51 building, still set legal rents at levels far higher than the law allows. Two tenants at 651 West 171st Street in Washington Heights filed a lawsuit against the Scharfman Organization in Manhattan Supreme Court on Oct. 23, alleging that Scharfman didn't register the stabilized units for six years with the State Homes and Community Renewal agency, and also charged illegally high rents. The suit says that the landlord brought the apartments back into stabilization following Cuomo's letter but still continued to charge an illegally high rent. Scharfman is alleged to have reregistered an apartment with the state's Homes and Community Renewal with a legal rent of $3,304, more than $600 over the legal threshold (but the tenant, for now, is receiving a deep discount, known as a preferential rent). The problem with the preferential rent, said Aaron Carr, the founder of the Housing Rights Initiative, which performed the research leading to the suit, is that it invites the opportunity for abuse of the rent laws. In other words, Scharfman can choose to slide the charged rent all the way up to $3,304 at any time, he said. In some cases, the discounted rents tenants pay at the building are higher than what Rent Guidelines Board increases and the rules governing J-51 would have allowed, the suit alleges. Another tenant mentioned in the suit has a current legal rent of $2,600, but receives a $500 monthly preferential discount. By comparison, a tenant in the same unit was paying $1,557 in 2009. The suit alleges no significant capital improvements were carried out that would have helped boost legal rents to those levels. In addition, the tenants were allegedly made to sign lease waivers that indicated they had forfeited their rights to contest rent increases and challenge the legal rent. "In theory, a preferential rent is a discounted rent," Mr. Carr said in a statement. "However, if the discounted rent is based on a fraudulent rent spike, it's no longer a discount, it's an overcharge hiding behind a larger overcharge." The filing attorneys in the case are the law offices of Jack Lester and of John Maher. They are seeking class-action status for the suit that could include any or all present and past tenants of the 48-unit building. Scharfman Organization's Mark Scharfman, who also operates Beach Lane Management, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Mr. Carr and other advocates see situations such as 651 West 171st Street as an acute regulatory failure. "Unfortunately for taxpayers, the Department of Homes and Community Renewal does not release the rental history information of rent stabilized units to the public," Mr. Carr said. "We call on DHCR to release its data on the number of units in J-51 buildings that have been re-stabilized at illegal amounts." [GN] SHOWPLACE ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Showplace Entertainment Center, LLC. The case is styled as Richard Baldelli and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Showplace Entertainment Center, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17- cv-08050 (S.D. N.Y., October 19, 2017). Showplace Entertainment Center, LLC is a bowling alley.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. SKECHERS USA: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") on Oct. 23 disclosed that on October 20, 2017, it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan ("Steamfitters 449") against Skechers U.S.A., Inc. ("Skechers" or the "Company") (NYSE:SKX), and certain of its senior executives (collectively, "Defendants"). The action, which is captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Skechers U.S.A, Inc., No. 17-cv-08107 (S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Skechers common stock between April 23, 2015 and October 22, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Skechers designs, develops, and markets footwear for men, women, and children. The Company's primary reporting segments are: (1) Domestic Wholesale; (2) International Wholesale; and (3) Retail (which includes both domestic and international Company stores). From 2013 through 2015, Domestic Wholesale was the Company's primary driver of growth and accounted for higher net sales as compared to the other two segments. The Domestic Wholesale segment accounted for approximately 39 percent of Skechers' 2015 total net sales. The Company's Domestic Wholesale customers include department stores, athletic footwear retailers, and specialty shoe stores. During the Class Period, Skechers repeatedly touted the strength of customer demand within the Domestic Wholesale segment, which the Company claimed would spur continued sales growth. Skechers frequently emphasized that its Domestic Wholesale segment growth would continue into the second half of 2015 based on pending orders and meetings with key customers. However, Defendants' Class Period statements pertaining to back-half 2015 customer demand and sales growth related thereto were materially false and misleading because Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Domestic Wholesale customers took early receipt of fall 2015 inventory, causing them to delay receipt of and, in some cases, cancel pending orders scheduled for delivery in the second half of 2015; (2) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's Domestic Wholesale growth rate was unsustainable; and (3) the Company's positive statements about its business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. The Company's slowing sales growth was revealed on October 22, 2015 after the market closed, when Skechers issued a press release announcing financial results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2015, which included disappointing net sales that fell short of analysts' consensus estimates. According to Defendants, $20 million in net sales were shifted from third quarter 2015 into second quarter 2015 due to early customer deliveries. Defendants blamed the sales miss on the Company's inability to make up this shortfall in third quarter 2015 due to a weaker-than-expected retail environment. On news of the Company's disappointing net sales and diluted earnings per share, Skechers common stock fell $14.55 per share, or 31.50 percent, to close on October 23, 2015 at $31.64 per share. If you purchased or acquired Skechers common stock during the Class Period, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than December 22, 2017. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P. McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at fmcconville@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the complaint online at https://is.gd/R032c0 Steamfitters 449 is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally with combined assets under management of more than $2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its half-century of securities litigation experience, more than 60 full-time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants. [GN] SPENCER BUILDING: Faces "Gomez" Suit in California Superior Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spencer Building Maintenance Inc. The case is styled as Manuela Gomez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Spencer Building Maintenance Inc and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34- 2017-00220928-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., October 19, 2017). Spencer Building Maintenance Inc. offers janitorial services in Rancho Cordova, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B Kingsley, Esq. Kingsley & Kingsley Lawyers City National Bank Building 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Facsimile: 818-990-2903 Telephone: 818-922-8371 800-591-1893 ST. LOUIS, MO: ACLU Class Action Over Unlawful Assembly Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Fox2Now reports that another protest took place on Oct. 22 outside of St. Louis Police Headquarters. It's a common sight since the Jason Stockley decision. The former St. Louis police officer was acquitted in the killing of Anthony Lamar Smith. The aftermath of that decision is in federal court. The ACLU filed a class action lawsuit against St. Louis City alleging unlawful and unconstitutional actions against people by police during protests. That case was set to resume on Oct. 26. Attorney Chet Pleban is watching the proceedings with great interest. [GN] STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Rosario" FCRA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard A. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JONATHAN SANTIAGO ROSARIO, Plaintiff, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. C16-1951 RAJ (W.D. Wash.). The Plaintiff brings the putative class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FCRA by taking adverse employment action against him before providing him with a copy of his background report and a summary of his rights as an applicant. In March of 2016, the Plaintiff applied and interviewed for a barista position at a Starbucks location in Colorado. Applicants for barista positions at Starbucks must first fill out an employment application online. After an applicant is selected, Starbucks makes a conditional offer of employment. Starbucks then orders a background check on the applicant through a third-party background screening service, Accurate Background ("Accurate"). At some point between March 29 and April 7, 2016, Starbucks received the Plaintiff's background report from Accurate. The report included inaccurate criminal record information that has been attributed to the Plaintiff's adoptive brother. The type of criminal record shown on the report would typically prevent hiring by Starbucks. On or before April 7, 2016, Starbucks removed the Plaintiff from hiring consideration based on this background report. On or about April 20, 2016, Accurate sent the Plaintiff a letter on behalf of Starbucks, informing him that his background check did not meet Starbucks requirements and that he could appeal Starbucks' decision. The letter also states that if the Plaintiff's appeal was successful, his offer of employment would be reinstituted. On May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff called Accurate and disputed the results of his background check. The Plaintiff's background report was corrected shortly after. The Plaintiff's job offer was not reinstituted. As the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that his injury is traceable to Starbucks' alleged violation of the FCRA, Judge Jones denied Starbucks' Motion to the extent that it requests to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims due to lack of standing. He finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that he suffered an injury, thus Starbucks' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's class claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d)(1)(D) is also denied. Finally, the FCRA defines adverse action as a denial of employment or any other decision for employment or any other decision for employment purposes that adversely affects any current or prospective employee. An adoption of an adjudication that the Plaintiff was ineligible for employment is a decision for employment purposes that adversely affected a prospective employee. Even if, as Starbucks alleges, the Plaintiff received notice prior to the April 20, 2016 letter from Accurate, the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that this adverse action occurred prior to that notice. To the extent that Starbucks' Motion seeks to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims for failure to a state a claim, it is denied. For these reasons, Judge Jones denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/6Gmxei from Leagle.com. Jonathan Santiago Rosario, Plaintiff, represented by James A. Francis -- info@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac vice. Jonathan Santiago Rosario, Plaintiff, represented by John Soumilas, FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac vice, Lauren K.W. Brennan, FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac vice, Erika L. Nusser -- enusser@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC & Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC. Starbucks Corporation, Defendant, represented by James E. Howard - - jimhoward@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE. STATE SECURITY: "Lipscomb" Action to Recover Minimum, OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Rasheen Lipscomb, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. State Security Agency, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 713746/2017 (N.Y. Sup., October 4, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, and unpaid spread of hours due, liquidated damages, as well as an award of reasonable attorney's fees under New York Labor Law and the New York Minimum Wage Act. Defendant was engaged in the business of providing security services where Plaintiff was employed as a security guard. Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Tel: (718) 740-1000 Fax: (718) 355-9668 Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Peoples" Product Suit Transferred to E.D. La. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Debra Peoples, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., formerly known as Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., Tai'an Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd., Beijing New Building Materials Public Limited Co., Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co., Ltd., China National Building Material Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00217 (N.D. Ga., August 1, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) on October 4, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-08285. Plaintiffs allege that the Chinese manufactured drywall designed, manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it unfit for residential purposes. Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed and marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it reacts, breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other noxious gases including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide. Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea S. Hirsch, Esq. HERMAN GEREL, LLP 230 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2260 Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: (404) 880-9500 Email: ahirsch@hermangerel.com TEZOS: Investors' Class Action Unlikely to Succeed -------------------------------------------------- Joseph Young, writing for Cryptocoins, reports that Paul Vigna of the Wall Street Journal reported that the launch of Tezos has been delayed due to the conflict between its founders over the ownership and control of Tezos. Arthur and Kathleen Breitman, the husband and wife partner who have found Tezos alongside Johann Gevers, was said to have sent a letter to the Tezos Foundation's board, requesting the removal of Gevers from the project through their attorney. Mr. Vigna wrote: "A lawyer representing the Breitman sent a nine-page letter to the foundation's board, demanding that its founder and president, Johann Gevers be removed, or they would withdraw their support from the project. He has alleged the Breitmans' involvement in his work 'was incompatible with the needed independence of the foundation,' according to a separate letter from a Breitman lawyer, which referenced a Sept. 21 meeting at which Mr. Gevers made the claim." But, in an interview with Reuters, Mr. Gevers strongly condemned the actions of both Arthur and Kathleen Breitman, describing their plan to remove him from the Tezos project as an illegal coup. Mr. Gevers stated: "As Arthur has done to others before me, this is attempted character assassination. It's a laundry list of misleading statements and outright lies." [Arthur and Kathleen] are attempting an illegal coup. Attempt to control the Foundation as if it were their own private entity . . . by bypassing the foundation's legal structure and interfering with management and operations." Two US Law Firms Open Investigations Into Tezos According to Block & Leviton, a Boston-based law firm representing investors for violations of securities laws, revealed that the conflict between the founders of the project has led to the decline of the Tezos token (Tezzies) by around 60 percent, in futures and derivatives markets. Because the launch of the Tezos token has been delayed as a result of the legal conflict between the founders, traders have been limited to trading Tezzies in the derivatives market. Block & Leviton further emphasized that it has launched an investigation into Tezos on behalf of its investors that have participated in the initial coin offering (ICO) of the project. Restis, another US-based law firm in California, revealed that it has begun to investigate the Tezos project, to prepare a class action lawsuit against the organization. "The Restis Law Firm, P.C., located in San Diego California, is investigating a class action lawsuit on behalf of U.S. investors in the Tezos ICO. We are interested in receiving feedback from investors to learn about their experience and develop facts for the case," the Restis team wrote. Legality of Investors and ICOs Whether US securities regulations can apply to Tezos investors remains unclear and ambiguous. Prior to its ICO, Tezos has disallowed US-based investors in participating in its ICO. Hence, it is highly unlikely that US securities regulations can be used against Tezos in a lawsuit. Furthermore, Tezos has described the ICO and the investment it had received as a "non-refundable donation" rather than a distribution of stake or equity in the company, to circumvent US SEC regulations and policies. Conclusively, it is unlikely that US investors will be able to challenge Tezos in a class action lawsuit because US investors were not allowed to invest in Tezos to begin with, and even if they had, investment in Tezos was described as a donation, which remains outside of the SEC's jurisdiction. But, Mr. Gevers has officially appealed to Swiss federal inspectors and requested "the supervisor to intervene, if necessary, to protect the interests of the Tezos ICO participants. [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Dec. 1 Reply Deadline in "Kalanick" ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned IRVING FIREMEN'S RELIEF & RETIREMENT FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-05558-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern Distirct of California approved the parties' stipulation to extend through and including Dec. 1, 2017 Kalanick's deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint. On Sept. 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Kalanick and Uber. Darryl James Alvarado, Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, the counsel for Kalanick is authorized to accept service of the Summons and Complaint on behalf of Kalanick. The Plaintiff served Kalanick with the Summons and Complaint on Oct. 24, 2017 by delivering a copy of each to the counsel for Kalanick via e-mail and U.S. Mail. Hon. Donna M. Ryu to whom the case was initially assigned entered an order governing Uber's time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint on Oct. 16, 2017. The case was reassigned to the Judge Gilliam on Oct. 20, 2017, but the briefing schedule for motions did not change. To the extent Kalanick moves to dismiss the Complaint, the parties have agreed that the motion will be briefed on the same schedule previously entered by Judge Ryu with respect to any motion to dismiss filed by Uber. The parties' proposed extension of Kalanick's responsive pleading deadline will not change or alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court order. The Plaintiff has selected Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP to serve as the Lead Counsel for the putative class in the litigation and Kalanick has no objection to the Plaintiff's selection of the Lead Counsel. The parties, through their undersigned counsel and subject to the Court's approval stipulated that Kalanick's deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint is extended through and including Dec. 1, 2017. If Kalanick moves to dismiss, the Plaintiff may respond by Jan. 17, 2018, and Kalanick may reply by Feb. 14, 2018. Judge Gilliam approved the parties' stipulation. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/Nkf7hX from Leagle.com. Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Angel Puimei Lau -- alau@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP. Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Edward Cochran -- bcochran@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller, et al., Jason A. Forge -- jforge@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Jeffrey James Stein -- jstein@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Luke O. Brooks -- lukeb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darryl James Alvarado, Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP & Darren Jay Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Uber Technologies, Defendant, represented by Alvin Matthew Ashley -- mashley@irell.com -- Irell & Manella LLP. UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Morgen" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Alyxx Morgen, James M. Caruso and Hope M. Demasco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08087 (S.D.N.Y., October 19, 2017). United Collection provides debt collection services for companies (government, healthcare, utility, financial service, communication, and student).[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss "Haddock" Agent Orange Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned PATRICIA HADDOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 16-1423C (Fed. Cl.), Judge Thomas C. Wheeler of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims denied both the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing and mootness, and the Plaintiffs' motion to stay proceedings. The case arises from the U.S. military's use of "Agent Orange," a toxic chemical mixture deployed as a jungle defoliant during the Vietnam War. Many veterans contracted serious ailments from being exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam more than 45 years ago, and have yet to resolve with the Government their claims for disability and retroactive retirement pay. On Oct. 28, 2016, putative class members Haddock, Ira Sue Roberts, Patricia Springer, and Lupe Zamora, filed a class action complaint in the Court on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated seeking retroactive military retired pay from being exposed to Agent Orange while serving in Vietnam. Mrs. Haddock is the surviving spouse of Nehmer class member and military retiree Thomas M. Haddock, who suffered from Parkinson's disease and died on June 14, 2010. On the merits of the case, the Plaintiffs alleged that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") and the Administrator failed to comply with the Dioxin Act. They also allege that DFAS has taken an inconsistent and unlawful approach with respect to retroactive payments of military retired pay. According to the Plaintiffs, in many cases, Nehmer class veterans who served for at least 20 years (or their survivors, if deceased) and had a combined disability rating of at least 50 percent for any period of time on or after Jan. 1, 2004, never received any payment of retroactive military retired pay, or heard from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service ("DFAS") the amount they would be entitled to receive. On March 3, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint, arguing that DFAS previously had paid the four Named Plaintiffs for the retroactive military retired pay they seek. It asserted that these individuals lack standing, or that their claims are moot. According to the Defendant, the appropriate action is for the Court to dismiss the complaint rather than to substitute a different named plaintiff to represent the class. On March 24, 2017, rather than responding to the Defendant's motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, naming a different set of individuals who would represent the class. Ms. Haddock, Ms. Springer, and Ms. Zamora were still listed, but three new Plaintiffs were named: Roy Proctor, Janiece Peugh, and Stephen Meinz. On May 10, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint. Then, on June 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay proceedings in the Court to allow the case pending in the Northern District of California to proceed first. At the Sept. 26, 2017 oral argument, the Court inquired about the number of prospective class members who would be eligible to participate in the action. The Plaintiffs' counsel represented that the answer to the question still is being investigated, but that he estimated the number was probably within the range of 30,000 to 35,000. Judge Wheeler notes that in Torrington Co. v. United States, for the exception to the mootness doctrine to apply, (i) the action must in its duration be too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration; and (ii) there must be a 'reasonable likelihood' that the party will again suffer the injury that gave rise to the suit. Given the Defendant's apparent litigation strategy of paying the named parties to render their claims moot, also observed by Judge Henderson in the Northern District of California, the Judge finds that the first element of the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception described in Torrington has been met. With so many veterans who have potential claims, he will not permit the Defendant to avoid judicial review by picking off a few named parties and paying them. He also finds the second element of the exception to be met, because the Plaintiffs have offered evidence to show that there are many other veterans (or their beneficiaries) whose retroactive benefits have yet to be paid. Therefore, the Judge denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Due to significant concerns of judicial efficiency, Judge Wheeler concludes that the case must move forward without staying the proceedings. To rule otherwise, in the absence of a pressing need, would be an "abuse of discretion." Therefore, he denied the Plaintiffs' motion to stay. Pursuant to RCFC 12(a)(4)(A)(i), the Defendant will file its answer to the amended complaint within 14 days, on or before Nov. 8, 2017. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/mVOzUr from Leagle.com. PATRICIA HADDOCK, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Stanislawski -- HSTANISLAWSKI@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin, LLP. PATRICIA SPRINGER, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Stanislawski, Sidley Austin, LLP. LUPE ZAMORA, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Stanislawski, Sidley Austin, LLP. ROY PROCTOR, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Stanislawski, Sidley Austin, LLP. JANIECE PEUGH, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Stanislawski, Sidley Austin, LLP. STEPHEN MEINZ, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Stanislawski, Sidley Austin, LLP. USA, Defendant, represented by Renee Alina Burbank, U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Division (G). US FOODS INC: Lit'l Pepper Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Lit'l Pepper Gourmet, Inc., individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. US Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-00032367 (Cal. Super., August 31, 2017), was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on October 10, 2017 under Case No. 17CV2080. Plaintiff alleges that US Foods engaged in deceptive and unfair representations, omissions and practices in charging a fuel surcharge to its California customers in violation of the California Business and Professions Code, Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Licari, Esq. D'EGIDIO LICARI TOWNSEND & SHAH, APC 7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 240 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619) 550-3011 Fax: (877) 888-6304 Email: mlicari@dltslaw.com U.S. Foods is represented by: Nancy L. Stagg, Esq. KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 12730 High Bluff Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 350-6156 Facsimile: (858) 350-6111 Email: nstagg@kilpatricktownsend.com VILLAGIO OF SAWGRASS: "Bonilla" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Jorge Bonilla, and all others similarly-situated v. Villagio of Sawgrass, Inc., Thomas Billante and Kosmas Kalas, Case No. 1:17- cv-23765 (S.D. Fla., October 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Jorge Bonilla is a resident of Broward County, Florida and worked as a server and as a non-exempt manager at the Defendants' restaurant. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in Sunrise, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Joseph Mathews, Esq. Michael James Corey, Esq. OBRONT COREY, PLLC One Bayfront Tower 100 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 800 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 373-1040 Fax: (305) 373-2040 WELLS FARGO: Nov. 15 Initial CMC in Securities Suit Vacated ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned GARY HEFLER, MARCELO MIZUKI, GUY SOLOMONOV, and UNION ASSET MANAGEMENT HOLDING AG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, JOHN G. STUMPF, JOHN R. SHREWSBERRY, CARRIE L. TOLSTEDT, TIMOTHY J. SLOAN, DAVID M. CARROLL, DAVID JULIAN, HOPE A. HARDISON, MICHAEL J. LOUGHLIN, AVID MODJTABAI, JAMES M. STROTHER, JOHN D. BAKER II, JOHN S. CHEN, LLOYD H. DEAN, ELIZABETH A. DUKE, SUSAN E. ENGEL, ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ JR., DONALD M. JAMES, CYNTHIA H. MILLIGAN, FEDERICO F. PE•A, JAMES H. QUIGLEY, JUDITH M. RUNSTAD, STEPHEN W. SANGER, SUSAN G. SWENSON, and SUZANNE M. VAUTRINOT, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05479-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California On Jan. 12, 2017, the Clerk of the Court filed a Clerk's Notice Continuing Case Management Conference, which reset the Initial Case Management Conference ("Initial CMC") from Jan. 25, 2017 to Sept. 27, 2017. On June 19, 2017, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws with a noticed hearing date of Oct. 26, 2017 ("Motions to Dismiss"). On Sept. 20, 2017, in response to the parties' request, the Clerk of the Court filed a Clerk's Notice Continuing Case Management Conference, which reset the Initial CMC from Sept. 27, 2017 to Nov. 15, 2017, so that it would be scheduled after the Oct. 26, 2017 hearing on the Motions to Dismiss. On Oct. 10, 2017, the Clerk of the Court filed a Clerk's Notice Continuing Motion Hearings, which reset the hearing date for the Motions to Dismiss from Oct. 26, 2017 to Nov. 7, 2017; The parties have met and conferred and believe that the interests of judicial efficiency and economy would be best served by continuing the Initial CMC until after the Court has heard and issued an order on the Motions to Dismiss. They jointly called the Clerk of the Court on Oct. 25, 2017 to request a continuance of the Initial CMC and were asked to submit their request in writing. The Parties stipulated that the Initial CMC currently set for Nov. 15, 2017, and all related deadlines, are vacated. The Initial CMC will be rescheduled to a date to be determined, subject to the Court's availability and convenience, which is at least 28 days after the Court has issued an order on the Motions to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/XlZW2u from Leagle.com. Gary Hefler, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Gary Hefler, Plaintiff, represented by Aelish Marie Baig -- aelishb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Jason C. Davis -- jdavis@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Union Asset Management Holding AG, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Adam H. Wierzbowski -- adam@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Aelish Marie Baig, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Angus Fei Ni -- angus.ni@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Blair Allen Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, Danielle Suzanne Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jason C. Davis, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jeroen Van Kwawegen -- jeroen@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca E. Boon -- Rebecca.Boon@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice & Salvatore J. Graziano -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice. Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago, Plaintiff, represented by Blair Allen Nicholas, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. Marcelo Mizuki, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Guy Solomonov, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Steve Klein, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP. Wells Fargo & Company, Defendant, represented by Brendan P. Cullen -- cullenb@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Christopher M. Viapiano -- viapianoc@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Nicolas Bourtin -- bourtinn@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Richard H. Klapper -- klapperr@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice & Sverker Kristoffer Hogberg -- hogbergs@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. John G. Stumpf, Defendant, represented by Grant P. Fondo -- gfondo@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Lloyd Winawer -- lwinawer@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Nicholas A. Reider -- nreider@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP & Richard M. Strassberg -- rstrassberg@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice. John R. Shrewsberry, Defendant, represented by Ismail Jomo Ramsey, Ramsey & Ehrlich LLP -- izzy@ramsey-ehrlich.com -- Katharine Ann Kates -- katharine@ramsey-ehrlich.com -- Ramsey & Ehrlich LLP & Miles F. Ehrlich -- miles@ramsey-ehrlich.com -- Ramsey & Ehrlich LLP. Carrie L. Tolstedt, Defendant, represented by Enu A. Mainigi, Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey E. Faucette, Skaggs Faucette LLP & Leslie Cooper Vigen -- lvigen@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice. Oregon Public Employees Retirement System, Defendant, represented by Cadio R. Zirpoli -- cadio@saveri.com -- Saveri & Saveri, Inc.. Timothy J. Sloan, Defendant, represented by Josh Alan Cohen -- jcohen@clarencedyer.com -- Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP, Adam F. Shearer -- ashearer@clarencedyer.com -- Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP & Nanci L. Clarence -- nclarence@clarencedyer.com -- Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP. David M. Carroll, Defendant, represented by James Neil Kramer -- jkramer@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Lily Irene Becker -- lbecker@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe & Walter F. Brown -- wbrown@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Suutcliffe LLP. David Julian, Defendant, represented by Timothy Paul Crudo -- tcrudo@coblentzlaw.com -- Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP & Rees Ferriter Morgan -- rmorgan@coblentzlaw.com -- Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP. Hope A. Hardison, Defendant, represented by Edward W. Swanson -- ed@smllp.law -- Swanson & McNamara LLP & Mary Geraldine McNamara - - mary@smllp.law -- Swanson & McNamara LLP. Michael J. Loughlin, Defendant, represented by Ted W. Cassman -- cassman@achlaw.com -- Arguedas Cassman & Headley, LLP & Laurel L. Headley -- headley@achlaw.com -- Arguedas Cassman & Headley, LLP. WHITESTONE LANES: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whitestone Lanes, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Baldelli and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Whitestone Lanes, Inc, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08080 (S.D. N.Y., October 19, 2017). Whitestone Lanes Bowling Center is a bowling center and cocktail lounge in Flushing, New York.[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 WOODLAKE RESORT: Residents Sue Over Plummeting Property Values -------------------------------------------------------------- Jaymie Baxley, writing for The Pilot, reports that residents of the troubled Woodlake Resort and Country Club have joined together to file a class action lawsuit against the company that owns the development. The filing was announced on Oct. 23 in a statement from the Restore Woodlake Committee, a group whose chairman and co-chair are among the 14 homeowners listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The homeowners blame Woodlake CC Corp. for causing property values to plummet in the gated community -- a trend that started after the state ordered the controlled draining of Lake Surf, the development's 1,200-acre centerpiece, because of concerns about the stability of its dam in the wake of Hurricane Matthew. Woodlake CC Corp. was later sued by the state Attorney General's Office for repeatedly failing to follow through on promises to repair the dam's deteriorated spillway. An agreement to dismantle the spillway was reached in court between the state and Julie Watson, vice president of Woodlake CC Corp. The state was forced to perform the breach itself after the company failed to meet the court-ordered construction deadlines. Watson later told Woodlake residents that the company could not afford to rebuild the dam, a necessary precursor to refilling the lake. She offered to transfer the empty lake and dam to a group of lakefront homeowners, which had devised a plan to secure funding for the multi-million-dollar project. Complicating matters was her suggestion that the transfer had been proposed by the state. Shortly after Ms. Watson's announcement, Bridget Munger, public information officer for the state Department of Environmental Quality, told The Pilot no such proposal had been made. Ms. Watson appeared to walk back her statements about the state's involvement in a follow-up email. "While my intent remains to do what is best for the Woodlake community, please be advised that no offer has been proposed to any group or entity concerning the transfer of Woodlake CC Corp.'s dam and lake properties," she wrote. "Woodlake CC Corp. keeps working diligently toward a resolution with the Woodlake dam and lake issues." But according to the statement released by the committee, Woodlake CC Corp. "has taken no meaningful action and has provided no update with respect to their stated intent to transfer the lake properties" "The purpose of this lawsuit is to receive a court-ordered judgment against (Woodlake CC Corp.) for many millions of dollars in lost property value, in addition to the damages suffered by those who have paid 'membership dues,'" the statement says, referring to the fees paid by residents to use the lake, golf courses and other amenities at the resort. "This judgment will enable us to foreclose on WLCCC properties and force a liquidation of these properties to satisfy the judgment." In a civil summons issued on Oct. 23, the plaintiffs claim Woodlake CC Corp. "offered memberships to property owners living within the Woodlake subdivision at levels ranging from $1,944.21 to $2,955.48, depending on the level of amenity access desired." The company allegedly "did not allow members to reduce their level of membership, even when the amenities for which they were paying were unavailable," according to the summons. "Members were unable to simply stop paying due to the threat that Woodlake CC Corp. would terminate their club membership entirely, thus requiring an additional $25,000 new member fee in the future should they ever wish to rejoin." Indeed, the website for Woodlake Resort and Country Club still advertises the empty lake as the development's "centerpiece . . . offering members boating, swimming, fishing and water skiing." The civil summons calls the company's continued collection of membership dues "a scheme to coerce members to continue paying fees even though WLCCC was not providing the promised amenities." While they continued to pay for use of the nonexistent lake, many residents who paid a premium for lakefront homes in the community saw their property values sink. The tax value of waterfront properties was slashed by 50 percent earlier this year after a review by the county tax department. The plaintiffs are being represented by Hope Carmichael, an attorney with Jordan Price Law Offices in Raleigh. The Pilot has reported extensively on the various developments and controversies at Woodlake. [GN] XOMA CORP: Court Dismisses Individual Claims in "Markette" ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JOSEPH F. MARKETTE, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. XOMA CORPORATION, JOHN W. VARIAN, and PAUL D. RUBIN, et. al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-3425 (HSG) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the action with prejudice as to the Plaintiff's individual claims and without prejudice as to the unnamed class members. On July 24, 2015, Markette filed the action on behalf of himself and the public stockholders of XOMA against the Defendants. No class has been certified. On Sept. 22, 2015, Plaintiff Joseph Tarzia filed a Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP as Lead Counsel. On May 13, 2016, the Court appointed Tarzia as the Lead Plaintiff and approved the Lead Plaintiff's selection of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP as the Lead Counsel. On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, adding Kelvin Neu as a Defendant. On Sept. 28, 2017, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint without prejudice and entered an order requiring the Plaintiff to file and serve an amended class action complaint by Oct. 26, 2017. After conducting a thorough investigation, the Plaintiff has decided not to file an amended class action complaint and to voluntarily dismiss the action, with prejudice as to the Plaintiff and his individual claims and without prejudice to the unnamed class members. The parties stipulate that (i) the Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action with prejudice as to his individual claims and without prejudice as to the unnamed class members pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (ii) that none of the Parties or their respective counsel have at any time failed to comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (iii) the Parties will each bear their own costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses and that no costs, sanctions, claims, or attorneys' fees arising in or from this action will be pursued by any of the parties. Judge approved the parties' stipulation. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/DjXTT8 from Leagle.com. Joseph F. Markette, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Punzalan -- markp@punzalanlaw.com -- Punzalan Law, P.C.. Joseph Tarzia, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Ann Rohr -- brohr@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP, Katherine M. Lenahan -- klenahan@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Farqui, LLP, pro hac vice, Nadeem Faruqi -- nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard W. Gonnello -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice & Sherief Morsy -- smorsy@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice. John Varian, et al., Defendants, represented by Amanda Alison Main -- amain@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette -- bdejarnette@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria -- jsantamaria@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer -- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP. Paul D. Rubin, Defendant, represented by Amanda Alison Main, Cooley LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette, Cooley LLP, Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP. XOMA Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amanda Alison Main, Cooley LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette, Cooley LLP, Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP. Kelvin M. Neu, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Cooley LLP. Joseph Tarzia, Movant, represented by Barbara Ann Rohr, Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP, Katherine M. Lenahan, Faruqi and Farqui, LLP, pro hac vice, Megan M. Sullivan, Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, Nadeem Faruqi, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard W. Gonnello, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice & Sherief Morsy, Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice. Xoma Group, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice. Nicholas Exarhos, Movant, represented by Mark Punzalan, Punzalan Law, P.C.. Kellie Exarhos, Movant, represented by Mark Punzalan, Punzalan Law, P.C.. Cliff M Claycomb, Movant, represented by Michael M. Goldberg -- mgoldberg@softtissuelawyer.com -- Goldberg Law PC. Dwayne Leroy Davis, Movant, represented by Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC. Lanae Davis, Movant, represented by Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC. Douglas S Reynolds, Movant, represented by Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC. Jason Wileman, Movant, represented by Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC. * CUNA Comments on Treasury Report on CFPB's Arbitration Rule ------------------------------------------------------------- CUInsight reports that following the release of the Treasury Department's new report on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's arbitration rule, CUNA chief advocacy officer Ryan Donovan issued a statement expressing appreciation that the report highlights flaws in the CFPB's analysis about how its rule will impact credit unions, their members, and other financial service providers and consumers: "The Treasury report sheds light on the fact that the rule will 'generate massive costs borne by businesses and consumers alike.' This is particularly true for credit union members, who are directly impacted by class action litigation since the credit union member-ownership structure means resources spent on costly litigation come out of the pockets of members through the pooled resources of the membership. The CFPB's dated research conducted from 2008-2012 fails to address these concerns, and many other developments in the marketplace over the years. "Credit unions continue to educate policymakers about the harm class action litigation causes for credit unions because of their size and membership-owner structure. Credit Union National Association (CUNA), state leagues and credit unions have had a several meetings over the last several weeks -- both as part of our Hike the Hill program and through state-based visits -- highlighting the importance of the Senate taking action on the resolution of disapproval. We're hopeful that the Senate will take up the resolution very soon." About CUNA With its network of affiliated state credit union leagues, Credit Union National Association (CUNA) -- http://www.aSmarterChoice.org -- serves America's credit unions, which are owned by more than 100 million consumer members. Credit unions are not-for-profit cooperatives providing affordable financial services to people from all walks of life. [GN] * Employers Face Illinois Biometric Class Action Threat ------------------------------------------------------- Gary R. Clark, Esq. and Matthew A. Sloan, Esq., of Quarles & Brady LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that savvy observers have noticed the dozens of class action lawsuits filed under the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act in the past few months. Even though the law has been on the books since 2008, the plaintiffs' bar has recently taken notice that employers adopting new technologies for employee identification and time keeping may unwittingly be in violation of the Act's protection of biometric data, such as fingerprints, face scans, voice scans, and retina scans. With a statutory damage scheme that awards liquidated damages for every individual violation, the consequences for employers in violation of the Act can be crippling. What is the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act? Passed in 2008 as the first law of its kind in the United States, Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, or "BIPA," makes it unlawful for private entities to collect, store, or use biometric information, such as eye scans, face scans, voice scans or finger prints, without obtaining individual consent and taking specific precautions to protect the information. 740 ILCS Sec. 14/. The law is generally applicable and protects consumers the same as it does employees, but has found a recent foothold in the employment context with the advent of new technologies that allow employers to use fingerprints, voice scans, facial recognition and retinal scans for employee identification, access to restricted areas, and time keeping. What does the law require? Under BIPA, any employer collecting, storing, or using the biometric information of its employees -- no matter how it is collected, stored or used -- must: 1. Provide each employee with written notice that his/her biometric information will be collected and stored, including an explanation of the purpose for collecting the information as well as the length of time it will be stored and/or used. 2. Obtain the subject's express written authorization to collect and store his/her biometric information. 3. Develop and make available to the public a written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for destroying the biometric information, which shall include destruction of the information when the reason for collection has been satisfied or three years after the employer's last interaction with the employee, whichever occurs first. 740 ILCS Section 14/15(a)-(b). Additionally, an employer may not disclose biometric information it has collected to a third party unless (1) the employee or his/her legally authorized representative gives consent; (2) the disclosure completes a financial transaction requested or authorized by the employee or his/her legally authorized representative; (3) the disclosure is required by local, state, or federal law; or (4) the disclosure is required pursuant to a valid warrant or subpoena. 740 ILCS Sec. 14/15(d). The law also compels an employer to use "the reasonable standard of care" within its industry for storing, transmitting, and protecting biometric information, and to act "in a manner that is the same as or more protective than the manner in which the [employer] stores, transmits and protects other confidential and sensitive information." 740 ILCS Sec. 14/15 (e). What happens if I fail to comply? Under the law, plaintiffs may recover statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation, plus attorneys' fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the court. Further, if actual damages exceed liquidated damages, then a plaintiff is entitled under the Act to pursue actual damages in lieu of liquidated damages. Most problematic for employers in violation of the Act is the fact that the $1,000 or $5,000 liquidated damage penalty is awarded on an individual basis. This can lead to a verdict in excess of $500,000 for an employer with as few as 100 employees and $50 million for an employer with 10,000 employees. Add in the ability to recover attorneys' fees and it is easy to see why this new cause of action is so popular with the plaintiff's bar. In order to avoid becoming the next target, employers should take the following steps: 1. As an initial matter, determine whether your company is collecting, storing or using individual biometric data for any purpose. 2. If the answer is yes, make sure your company has issued the required notice and received signed releases/consents from all affected individuals. Also make sure that you have in place a publically available written policy to cover the collection, storage, use and destruction of the data. 3. Ensure any collected data is not being sold or disclosed to third parties, outside of the limited exceptions permitted by the Act. 4. Evaluate your data privacy protocols and processes for protecting individual biometric data. If a vendor has access to the individual biometric data, make sure the vendor has sufficient data privacy protocols and processes in place. 5. Make sure your data breach policies recognize that individual biometric data is considered personal information under Illinois laws addressing data breach notification requirements. [GN] * Judges Sanction Two Law Firms Over Frivolous Tobacco Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that a panel of four federal judges has sanctioned two Florida law firms $9.1 million for filing more than 1,000 baseless claims against tobacco companies accused of hiding the dangers of cigarettes. The Wilner Firm and Farah & Farah, both based in Jacksonville, filed 1,250 frivolous suits on behalf of "personal-injury plaintiffs" who had died before the suits were filed, people who never authorized the suits, people who never lived in Florida, nonsmokers, and people whose cases had already been tried, the judges said. First Coast News and Law360 (sub. req.) covered the order. The defects were first discovered in 2012 after the court sent questionnaires to the named plaintiffs. A special master was then appointed to investigate. The 588 personal injury actions filed for dead plaintiffs should have been filed as wrongful-death or survival actions, the court said. Yet the complaints never suggested the plaintiffs had died. To the contrary, the court said, the lawyers "insisted that they were in contact with their clients." The court surmised that 572 suits weren't authorized because the plaintiffs didn't return a court questionnaire. In 15 of the 572 cases, questionnaires couldn't be mailed because the law firms didn't have a mailing address for the plaintiffs. The law firms "are held to account for the immense waste of judicial resources and contempt shown for the judicial process occasioned by maintaining over a thousand non-viable claims," the order says. "Counsel evinced a conscious disregard of their professional obligation to properly investigate such claims, obtain authorizations to file from clients, and-most importantly- communicate honestly with this court." The $9.1 million sanction is to compensate the court itself, according to the order. The judges arrived at the figure partly based on the estimated cost of about $7,000 for each frivolous lawsuit, and the more than $435,000 estimated cost of the special master. The 1,200 lawsuits were among 3,800 the two firms filed after the Florida Supreme Court decertified a tobacco class action and overturned a $145 billion award to the class. The state supreme court said, however, that the original jury's findings on causation and fault could be used by individual plaintiffs. The tobacco suits were known as Engle cases because the name plaintiff in the tossed class action was Howard Engle. Tobacco companies resolved the individual suits by setting up a multimillion dollar fund. The special master and the judges recommended an ethics investigation by the Florida Bar. The judges found the law firms would be able to pay the sanction out of their portion of $45 million in attorney fees in the tobacco cases that were being held in escrow. The sanction may be unprecedented, the order said. "Equally unprecedented is a lawyer filing 1,250 frivolous lawsuits, followed by years of maintaining those cases through obfuscation and recalcitrance," the judges wrote. The federal judges on the panel are William Young, Timothy Corrigan, Roy Dalton Jr., and Marcia Morales Howard. Daniel Kearney Bean -- Daniel.Bean@hklaw.com -- of Holland & Knight is one of the lawyers representing the firms. He told Law360 his clients respectfully disagree with the order. "They have dedicated their professional careers to the representation of those in need and will continue to do so," Mr. Bean said. "Without lawyers willing to take on difficult cases against formidable opponents, more preventable injuries and deaths will occur. They will remain zealous advocates for their clients while respecting the role of the judiciary." [GN] * Kilpatrick Townsend Attorneys Discusses Parens Patriea Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Gwendolyn Payton, Esq. -- GPayton@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that Parens patriae is a Latin term which literally means "parent of the fatherland." In parens patriae actions, a state sues on behalf of its citizens. The rights of the states to do this was first established in 1900 in Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1 (1900), when Louisiana sued Texas on behalf of its citizens to stop Texas from quarantining Louisiana goods shipped into Texas. Like a class action, parens patriae is a powerful mechanism for aggregating claims of individuals that are too modest themselves to justify confronting a corporate defendant with vast resources. But the benefits of the parens patriae mechanism come with strings attached. The United States antitrust laws contain explicit provisions that allow states to seek antitrust relief in federal courts on behalf of the people of the state. These actions function similarly to class actions, with the state acting in a role similar to a putative class representative. One of the primary differences between parens patriae and private class actions is that parens patriae law imposes no certification requirement, such as is required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for a parens patriae action to proceed. A state can bring a parens patriae action, for example, under Section 4C of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15c, which allows state attorneys general to sue private companies in federal court for monetary damages under federal antitrust law, as parens patriae, on behalf of their citizens who are "natural persons." (A state could bring antitrust claims on its own behalf just as any private person could, but 15 U.S.C. Section 15c limits beneficiaries of claims made as parens patriae to natural persons.) Could the existence of a parens patriae action effect your company's rights? Possibly. Most state laws include statutes that are analogous to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15c, but many extend the state's authority to sue on behalf of all "persons," including corporations. Moreover, while federal law contains specific provision for opt-outs, further providing that any final judgment shall be res judicata as to any claim by a person that does not opt out (see 15 U.S.C. Section 15c(b)), many state statutes do not provide an opt out or notice mechanism. See, e.g., Illinois Antitrust Act Sec. 7(2), 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 10/7(2) (2010); Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 84-212 (2008) (Nebraska antitrust statute); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 356:4-a (2009) (New Hampshire antitrust statute); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Section 1345.07 (West Supp. 2012) (Ohio antitrust statute). Thus, intervention may be the only means by which a corporation that has suffered substantial competitive injury can obtain its day in court and not be left to rely on the state to prosecute its claims. Notably, a state's action could potentially preclude any follow-on action by other entities, under the res judicata doctrine. See, e.g., Alaska Sport Fishing Ass'n v. Exxon Corp., 34 F.3d 769, 773 (9th Cir. 1994) ("Exxon") ("State governments may act in their parens patriae capacity as representatives for all their citizens in a suit to recover damages for injury to a sovereign interest . . . There is a presumption that the state will adequately represent the position of its citizens . . . Thus, the sportfishers here, as members of the public, were 'parties' to the . . . suit within the meaning of res judicata."). Can a party intervene in a state's parens patriae action? Maybe. The courts have evinced a bias against intervention in parens patriae suits. See Margaret H. Lemosa 126 Harv. L. Rev. 486, 508- 09, Aggregate Litigation Goes Public: Representative Suits by State Attorneys General (December, 2012) (explaining courts' disinclination to allow intervention: "Once again, the difference in treatment of public and private [i.e., class action] aggregate litigation seems to stem from a presumption that state attorneys general will protect the interests of the individuals they represent, making it unnecessary for those individuals to take a hand in (or exclude themselves from) the litigation."); see also Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949, 956-59 (9th Cir. 2006) (requiring a "very compelling showing" of inadequacy of representation for intervention). This may be important because state laws may not permit the attorney general to pursue certain remedies that would otherwise be available to class action plaintiffs or plaintiffs otherwise suing on their own behalf. Some statutes allow the state to seek only parens patriae restitution and injunctive relief (and not compensatory damages). See, e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. Secs. 44-1521 to -1534 (2003); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17535 (West 2008); Conn. Gen. Stat Secs. 42.110a-.110q (2011); 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/7 (2010); Iowa Code Section 714.16 (2007); N.Y. Exec. Law Sec. 63(12) (McKinney 2012); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sec. 1345.07 (West 2012). Defendants could then seek dismissal of follow-on federal antitrust claims by corporate plaintiffs, claiming that federal as well as state antitrust law claims are barred, based on the doctrine of claim splitting, which is a subset of res judicata or claim preclusion: "The doctrine of claim splitting bars a party from subsequent litigation where the 'same controversy' exists." Single Chip Systems Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1058 (S.D. Cal. 2007). In Exxon, for example, the United States and the State of Alaska brought suit in their capacities as "trustees for the public" (effectively parens patriae) under federal statutes, including Section 311(f) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1321(f)(5), and Section 107(f)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(f)(1). The governments sought damages for restoration of the environment and compensation for lost public uses of natural resources. 34 F.3d at 771. The Ninth Circuit held claims asserted by private plaintiffs in a separate suit barred by res judicata, ruling they sought relief that the governments had claimed in their prior action. Thus, where a corporate plaintiff faces any risk of preclusion under res judicata based on a prior state action (because, for example, the governmental entity has a plausible basis for seeking the damages that otherwise would be available to the plaintiff), intervention may be the only course that avoids the risk of losing potentially significant damages claims. [GN] * Treasury Joins Fight Over Class Actions, Balks at CFPB Study -------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Lawler, writing for Washington Examiner, reports that the Trump Treasury joined the fight over a new rule favoring class- action lawsuits on Oct. 23, saying that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau erred in its justification for the major financial regulation. The Treasury's publication of an 18-page analysis faulting the CFPB's rulemaking represents an escalation in an unusually public and hostile fight between regulators. At issue is a rule the CFPB finalized in July that would bar financial firms from writing contracts that prevent customers from joining in class-action lawsuits against the firms, and instead steer them toward private arbitration. Republicans have criticized the rule as a giveaway to trial lawyers. Richard Cordray, the Obama-appointed head of the bureau responsible for the rule, has faced sustained criticism from Keith Noreika, Trump's acting Comptroller of the Currency charged with regulating banks. Mr. Noreika has second-guessed the CFPB's justification for its own rule and criticized the agency in letters and op-eds. His Office of the Comptroller of the Currency released a finding that the rule would burden banks enough to raise borrowing costs by up to 25 percent, potentially threatening the viability of some banks. On Oct. 23, the Treasury agreed with the comptroller's assessment, concluding that the CFPB's review was "limited in ways that raise serious questions about its conclusions and undermine the foundation of the Rule itself." In particular, the Treasury alleged that the CFPB didn't take into account how many new class- action suits there would be, or how much of the benefit of those suits would flow to trial lawyers rather than to consumers. It also said that the bureau shortchanged the benefits of private arbitration. In response, CFPB spokesperson Sam Gilford said that the Treasury report "rehashes industry arguments that were analyzed in depth and solidly refuted in the final rule." Contracts that mandate arbitration for disputes allow companies to avoid accountability, Gilford added, citing recent high-profile scandals involving the megabank Wells Fargo and the credit bureau Equifax. Financial firms have sued to stop the bureau's rule on the grounds that its own analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule was flawed. Also, Congress could overturn the rule legislatively if the Senate can muster the votes. The House has already voted to cancel it. Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer bashed the Treasury report on Oct. 23, saying in a statement that "the Trump administration has twisted itself into a pretzel to try to undermine a rule that protects consumers from unscrupulous actors like Equifax and Wells Fargo." Some congressional Republicans have also sought Cordray's ouster. His term runs through next summer, but key figures in the party, such as House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling, have called on Trump to fire him before then. [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 * * *